Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 39

Cited In for PubMed (Select 15800894)

1.

Mammographic features associated with interval breast cancers in screening programs.

Boyd NF, Huszti E, Melnichouk O, Martin LJ, Hislop G, Chiarelli A, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S.

Breast Cancer Res. 2014 Aug 26;16(4):417. doi: 10.1186/s13058-014-0417-7.

2.

Breast density and parenchymal texture measures as potential risk factors for Estrogen-Receptor positive breast cancer.

Keller BM, Chen J, Conant EF, Kontos D.

Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2014 Mar 27;9035:90351D.

3.

Evolution of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population: clinical and economic implications.

Killelea BK, Long JB, Chagpar AB, Ma X, Wang R, Ross JS, Gross CP.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Jul 16;106(8). pii: dju159. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju159. Print 2014 Aug.

PMID:
25031307
4.

Diagnostic Performance of Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging (BSGI) for Breast Cancer: Usefulness of Dual-Phase Imaging with (99m)Tc-sestamibi.

Park JS, Lee AY, Jung KP, Choi SJ, Lee SM, Kyun Bae S.

Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Mar;47(1):18-26. doi: 10.1007/s13139-012-0176-2. Epub 2012 Oct 13.

5.

Two decades after BRCA: setting paradigms in personalized cancer care and prevention.

Couch FJ, Nathanson KL, Offit K.

Science. 2014 Mar 28;343(6178):1466-70. doi: 10.1126/science.1251827.

6.

The usefulness of F-18 FDG PET/CT-mammography for preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison with conventional PET/CT and MR-mammography.

Moon EH, Lim ST, Han YH, Jeong YJ, Kang YH, Jeong HJ, Sohn MH.

Radiol Oncol. 2013 Oct 8;47(4):390-7. doi: 10.2478/raon-2013-0031. eCollection 2013.

7.

Differences in breast density assessment using mammography, tomosynthesis and MRI and their implications for practice.

Tagliafico A, Tagliafico G, Houssami N.

Br J Radiol. 2013 Dec;86(1032):20130528. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20130528. Epub 2013 Oct 28. No abstract available.

8.

Is there a role for routine screening MRI in women with LCIS?

King TA, Muhsen S, Patil S, Koslow S, Oskar S, Park A, Morrogh M, Sakr RA, Morrow M.

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Nov;142(2):445-53. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2725-5. Epub 2013 Oct 19.

9.

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. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20130255. Epub 2013 Sep 12.

10.

Establishing a program for individuals at high risk for breast cancer.

Cadiz F, Kuerer HM, Puga J, Camacho J, Cunill E, Arun B.

J Cancer. 2013 Jul 1;4(5):433-46. doi: 10.7150/jca.6481. Print 2013.

11.

Breast imaging in the young: the role of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer screening, diagnosis and follow-up.

Salem DS, Kamal RM, Mansour SM, Salah LA, Wessam R.

J Thorac Dis. 2013 Jun;5 Suppl 1:S9-S18. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.05.02.

12.

Management of the asymptomatic BRCA mutation carrier.

Teller P, Kramer RK.

Appl Clin Genet. 2010 Nov 24;3:121-31. doi: 10.2147/TACG.S8882. Print 2010.

13.

Magnetic resonance imaging as a predictor of pathologic response in patients treated with neoadjuvant systemic treatment for operable breast cancer. Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 017.

De Los Santos JF, Cantor A, Amos KD, Forero A, Golshan M, Horton JK, Hudis CA, Hylton NM, McGuire K, Meric-Bernstam F, Meszoely IM, Nanda R, Hwang ES.

Cancer. 2013 May 15;119(10):1776-83. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27995. Epub 2013 Feb 21.

14.

A similarity study of content-based image retrieval system for breast cancer using decision tree.

Cho HC, Hadjiiski L, Sahiner B, Chan HP, Helvie M, Paramagul C, Nees AV.

Med Phys. 2013 Jan;40(1):012901. doi: 10.1118/1.4770277.

15.

Classification of breast lesions pre-contrast injection using water resonance lineshape analysis.

Wood AM, Medved M, Bacchus ID, Al-Hallaq HA, Shimauchi A, Newstead GM, Olopade OI, Venkataraman SS, Ivancevic MK, Karczmar GS.

NMR Biomed. 2013 May;26(5):569-77. doi: 10.1002/nbm.2893. Epub 2012 Nov 20.

16.

Cancer: Destiny from density.

Seewaldt VL.

Nature. 2012 Oct 25;490(7421):490-1. doi: 10.1038/490490a. No abstract available.

18.

Comparison of breast tissue measurements using magnetic resonance imaging, digital mammography and a mathematical algorithm.

Lu LJ, Nishino TK, Johnson RF, Nayeem F, Brunder DG, Ju H, Leonard MH, Grady JJ, Khamapirad T.

Phys Med Biol. 2012 Nov 7;57(21):6903-27. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/57/21/6903. Epub 2012 Oct 9.

19.

Evaluation of tissue sampling methods used for MRI-detected contralateral breast lesions in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6667 trial.

DeMartini WB, Hanna L, Gatsonis C, Mahoney MC, Lehman CD.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Sep;199(3):W386-91. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7000.

20.

Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation.

Keller BM, Nathan DL, Wang Y, Zheng Y, Gee JC, Conant EF, Kontos D.

Med Phys. 2012 Aug;39(8):4903-17. doi: 10.1118/1.4736530.

Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk