Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 1 to 20 of 417

1.

Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.

Baum JK, Hanna LG, Acharyya S, Mahoney MC, Conant EF, Bassett LW, Pisano ED.

Radiology. 2011 Jul;260(1):61-7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.11101285. Epub 2011 Apr 18.

2.

Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST.

Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, Baum JK, Acharyya S, Cormack JB, Hanna LA, Conant EF, Fajardo LL, Bassett LW, D'Orsi CJ, Jong RA, Rebner M, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis CA; DMIST Investigators Group.

Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):376-83. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2461070200.

3.

Probably benign lesions at screening breast US in a population with elevated risk: prevalence and rate of malignancy in the ACRIN 6666 trial.

Barr RG, Zhang Z, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Berg WA.

Radiology. 2013 Dec;269(3):701-12. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13122829. Epub 2013 Oct 28.

4.

Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.

Harvey JA, Gard CC, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Buist DS, Geller BA, Onega TL; Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):752-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120221. Epub 2012 Dec 18.

5.

BI-RADS Category 3 Comparison: Probably Benign Category after Recall from Screening before and after Implementation of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

McDonald ES, McCarthy AM, Weinstein SP, Schnall MD, Conant EF.

Radiology. 2017 Dec;285(3):778-787. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162837. Epub 2017 Jul 17.

PMID:
28715278
6.

Screening breast MR imaging: comparison of interpretation of baseline and annual follow-up studies.

Abramovici G, Mainiero MB.

Radiology. 2011 Apr;259(1):85-91. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10101009. Epub 2011 Feb 1.

PMID:
21285337
7.

Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study.

Hendrick RE, Cole EB, Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Marques H, Cohen MA, Jong RA, Mawdsley GE, Kanal KM, D'Orsi CJ, Rebner M, Gatsonis C.

Radiology. 2008 Apr;247(1):38-48. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2471070418.

8.

Frequency of malignancy seen in probably benign lesions at contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: findings from ACRIN 6667.

Weinstein SP, Hanna LG, Gatsonis C, Schnall MD, Rosen MA, Lehman CD.

Radiology. 2010 Jun;255(3):731-7. doi: 10.1148/radiol.10081712.

9.

Reassessment and Follow-Up Results of BI-RADS Category 3 Lesions Detected on Screening Breast Ultrasound.

Chae EY, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ, Kim HH.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Mar;206(3):666-72. doi: 10.2214/AJR.15.14785.

PMID:
26901026
10.

Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.

Hooley RJ, Greenberg KL, Stackhouse RM, Geisel JL, Butler RS, Philpotts LE.

Radiology. 2012 Oct;265(1):59-69. Epub 2012 Jun 21.

PMID:
22723501
11.

Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model.

Pisano ED, Acharyya S, Cole EB, Marques HS, Yaffe MJ, Blevins M, Conant EF, Hendrick RE, Baum JK, Fajardo LL, Jong RA, Koomen MA, Kuzmiak CM, Lee Y, Pavic D, Yoon SC, Padungchaichote W, Gatsonis C.

Radiology. 2009 Aug;252(2):348-57. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2522081457.

12.

Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.

Strobel K, Schrading S, Hansen NL, Barabasch A, Kuhl CK.

Radiology. 2015 Feb;274(2):343-51. doi: 10.1148/radiol.14140645. Epub 2014 Sep 29.

PMID:
25271857
13.

Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.

Altas H, Tureli D, Cengic I, Kucukkaya F, Aribal E, Kaya H.

Acta Radiol. 2016 Nov;57(11):1304-1309. doi: 10.1177/0284185115587733. Epub 2016 Sep 30.

PMID:
26019241
14.

BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy.

Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, Sullivan DC.

Radiology. 1999 Jun;211(3):845-50.

PMID:
10352614
15.

Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.

Skaane P, Balleyguier C, Diekmann F, Diekmann S, Piguet JC, Young K, Niklason LT.

Radiology. 2005 Oct;237(1):37-44. Epub 2005 Aug 11.

PMID:
16100086
16.

Computer-aided classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast lesions.

Buchbinder SS, Leichter IS, Lederman RB, Novak B, Bamberger PN, Sklair-Levy M, Yarmish G, Fields SI.

Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):820-3. Epub 2004 Jan 22.

PMID:
14739315
17.

American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology.

Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, Hendrick RE, Tosteson AN, Fryback DG, Bassett LW, Baum JK, Conant EF, Jong RA, Rebner M, D'Orsi CJ.

Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):404-12. Epub 2005 Jun 16.

PMID:
15961755
18.

Stereoscopic digital mammography: improved specificity and reduced rate of recall in a prospective clinical trial.

D'Orsi CJ, Getty DJ, Pickett RM, Sechopoulos I, Newell MS, Gundry KR, Bates SR, Nishikawa RM, Sickles EA, Karellas A, D'Orsi EM.

Radiology. 2013 Jan;266(1):81-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120382. Epub 2012 Nov 13.

PMID:
23150865
19.

BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value.

Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS.

Radiology. 2006 May;239(2):385-91. Epub 2006 Mar 28.

PMID:
16569780
20.

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. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016151999. Epub 2016 May 3.

PMID:
27139264

Supplemental Content

Support Center