Format
Sort by
Items per page

Send to

Choose Destination

Links from PubMed

Items: 16

1.

Medical auditing of whole-breast screening ultrasonography.

Kim MJ.

Ultrasonography. 2017 Jul;36(3):198-203. doi: 10.14366/usg.17005. Epub 2017 Feb 16.

2.

Application of 3D and 2D quantitative shear wave elastography (SWE) to differentiate between benign and malignant breast masses.

Tian J, Liu Q, Wang X, Xing P, Yang Z, Wu C.

Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 20;7:41216. doi: 10.1038/srep41216.

3.

An update in breast cancer screening and management.

Warrier S, Tapia G, Goltsman D, Beith J.

Womens Health (Lond). 2016;12(2):229-39. doi: 10.2217/whe.15.105. Epub 2015 Dec 21. Review.

4.

A novel two-dimensional quantitative shear wave elastography for differentiating malignant from benign breast lesions.

Tang L, Xu HX, Bo XW, Liu BJ, Li XL, Wu R, Li DD, Fang L, Xu XH.

Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Jul 15;8(7):10920-8. eCollection 2015.

5.

Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.

Hwang JY, Han BK, Ko EY, Shin JH, Hahn SY, Nam MY.

Yonsei Med J. 2015 Sep;56(5):1352-8. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.5.1352.

7.

Postmortem validation of breast density using dual-energy mammography.

Molloi S, Ducote JL, Ding H, Feig SA.

Med Phys. 2014 Aug;41(8):081917. doi: 10.1118/1.4890295.

8.

Diagnostic value of elastography using acoustic radiation force impulse imaging and strain ratio for breast tumors.

Kim YS, Park JG, Kim BS, Lee CH, Ryu DW.

J Breast Cancer. 2014 Mar;17(1):76-82. doi: 10.4048/jbc.2014.17.1.76. Epub 2014 Mar 28. Erratum in: J Breast Cancer. 2016 Sep;19(3):339.

9.

Use of shear wave elastography to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions.

Çebi Olgun D, Korkmazer B, Kılıç F, Dikici AS, Velidedeoğlu M, Aydoğan F, Kantarcı F, Yılmaz MH.

Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):239-44. doi: 10.5152/dir.2014.13306.

10.

Quantitative ultrasound analysis for classification of BI-RADS category 3 breast masses.

Moon WK, Lo CM, Chang JM, Huang CS, Chen JH, Chang RF.

J Digit Imaging. 2013 Dec;26(6):1091-8. doi: 10.1007/s10278-013-9593-8.

11.

Training the ACRIN 6666 Investigators and effects of feedback on breast ultrasound interpretive performance and agreement in BI-RADS ultrasound feature analysis.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB.

AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jul;199(1):224-35. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.7324.

12.

Shear wave elastography for breast masses is highly reproducible.

Cosgrove DO, Berg WA, Doré CJ, Skyba DM, Henry JP, Gay J, Cohen-Bacrie C; BE1 Study Group.

Eur Radiol. 2012 May;22(5):1023-32. doi: 10.1007/s00330-011-2340-y. Epub 2011 Dec 31.

13.

Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: a phantom study.

Shkumat NA, Springer A, Walker CM, Rohren EM, Yang WT, Adrada BE, Arribas E, Carkaci S, Chuang HH, Santiago L, Mawlawi OR.

Med Phys. 2011 Sep;38(9):5176-85. doi: 10.1118/1.3627149.

14.

Supplementary screening sonography in mammographically dense breast: pros and cons.

Youk JH, Kim EK.

Korean J Radiol. 2010 Nov-Dec;11(6):589-93. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2010.11.6.589. Epub 2010 Oct 29. Review.

15.

Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.

Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, Weinbrenner S, Albert US.

BMC Cancer. 2009 Sep 20;9:335. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-9-335. Review.

16.

Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer.

Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, Pisano ED, Jong RA, Evans WP, Morton MJ, Mahoney MC, Larsen LH, Barr RG, Farria DM, Marques HS, Boparai K; ACRIN 6666 Investigators.

JAMA. 2008 May 14;299(18):2151-63. doi: 10.1001/jama.299.18.2151. Erratum in: JAMA. 2010 Apr 21;303(15):1482.

Supplemental Content

Support Center