219 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35617870)
1. A comparative efficacy study of diagnostic digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in BI-RADS 4 breast cancer diagnosis.
Ezeana CF; Puppala M; Wang L; Chang JC; Wong STC
Eur J Radiol; 2022 Aug; 153():110361. PubMed ID: 35617870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Is there any added value to substitute the 2D digital MLO projection for a MLO tomosynthesis projection and its synthetic view when a 2D standard digital mammography is used in a one-stop-shop immediate reading mammography screening?
Mesurolle B; El Khoury M; Travade A; Bagard C; Pétrou A; Monghal C
Eur Radiol; 2021 Dec; 31(12):9529-9539. PubMed ID: 34047846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Frequency and Outcomes of BI-RADS Category 3 Assessments in Patients With a Personal History of Breast Cancer: Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Offit LR; Chikarmane SA; Lacson RC; Giess CS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2023 Sep; 221(3):313-322. PubMed ID: 37095672
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimation of percentage breast tissue density: comparison between digital mammography (2D full field digital mammography) and digital breast tomosynthesis according to different BI-RADS categories.
Tagliafico AS; Tagliafico G; Cavagnetto F; Calabrese M; Houssami N
Br J Radiol; 2013 Nov; 86(1031):20130255. PubMed ID: 24029631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast tomosynthesis for the clarification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions can decrease follow-up examinations and enables immediate cancer diagnosis.
Bahrs SD; Otto V; Hattermann V; Klumpp B; Hahn M; Nikolaou K; Siegmann-Luz K
Acta Radiol; 2018 Oct; 59(10):1176-1183. PubMed ID: 29451022
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Screening Mammography Performance Metrics of 2D Digital Mammography Versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Women With a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
Chikarmane SA; Cochon LR; Khorasani R; Sahu S; Giess CS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Sep; 217(3):587-594. PubMed ID: 32966113
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. BI-RADS 3 on dense breast screening ultrasound after digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis.
Dibble EH; Singer TM; Baird GL; Lourenco AP
Clin Imaging; 2021 Dec; 80():315-321. PubMed ID: 34482242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Assessing the Positive Predictive Value of Architectural Distortion Detected with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in BI-RADS 4 Cases.
Dou E; Ksepka M; Dodelzon K; Shingala PY; Katzen JT
J Breast Imaging; 2020 Nov; 2(6):552-560. PubMed ID: 38424858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Value of contrast-enhanced mammography combined with the Kaiser score for clinical decision-making regarding tomosynthesis BI-RADS 4A lesions.
Rong X; Kang Y; Xue J; Han P; Li Z; Yang G; Shi G
Eur Radiol; 2022 Nov; 32(11):7439-7447. PubMed ID: 35639141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Tomosynthesis in the Diagnostic Setting: Changing Rates of BI-RADS Final Assessment over Time.
Raghu M; Durand MA; Andrejeva L; Goehler A; Michalski MH; Geisel JL; Hooley RJ; Horvath LJ; Butler R; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
Radiology; 2016 Oct; 281(1):54-61. PubMed ID: 27139264
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.
Bahl M; Mercaldo S; Vijapura CA; McCarthy AM; Lehman CD
Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):477-484. PubMed ID: 29967957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Effect of Mammographic Screening Modality on Breast Density Assessment: Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
Gastounioti A; McCarthy AM; Pantalone L; Synnestvedt M; Kontos D; Conant EF
Radiology; 2019 May; 291(2):320-327. PubMed ID: 30888933
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening.
Kuhl CK; Keulers A; Strobel K; Schneider H; Gaisa N; Schrading S
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Feb; 20(1):13. PubMed ID: 29426360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Contrast Enhanced Digital Mammography (CEDM) Helps to Safely Reduce Benign Breast Biopsies for Low to Moderately Suspicious Soft Tissue Lesions.
Zuley ML; Bandos AI; Abrams GS; Ganott MA; Gizienski TA; Hakim CM; Kelly AE; Nair BE; Sumkin JH; Waheed U; Gur D
Acad Radiol; 2020 Jul; 27(7):969-976. PubMed ID: 31495761
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Characterization of Breast Masses in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammograms: An Observer Performance Study.
Chan HP; Helvie MA; Hadjiiski L; Jeffries DO; Klein KA; Neal CH; Noroozian M; Paramagul C; Roubidoux MA
Acad Radiol; 2017 Nov; 24(11):1372-1379. PubMed ID: 28647388
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories.
Mariscotti G; Durando M; Houssami N; Fasciano M; Tagliafico A; Bosco D; Casella C; Bogetti C; Bergamasco L; Fonio P; Gandini G
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):765-773. PubMed ID: 28819781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.
Zuckerman SP; Sprague BL; Weaver DL; Herschorn SD; Conant EF
Radiology; 2020 Dec; 297(3):545-553. PubMed ID: 33048032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
