Home The Word Brain My Amedeo FAQ Privacy About Flying Publisher   


OLIENA
Language recovery after stroke
App | Video | PDF (278 pp) | Web

  Breast Cancer

  Free Subscription


Articles published in Radiology

Retrieve available abstracts of 65 articles:
HTML format
Text format



Single Articles


    June 2018
  1. PATTACINI P, Nitrosi A, Rossi PG, Iotti V, et al
    Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.
    Radiology. 2018 Jun 5:172119. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172119.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  2. KANG SK, Jiang M, Duszak R Jr, Heller SL, et al
    Use of Breast Cancer Screening and Its Association with Later Use of Preventive Services among Medicare Beneficiaries.
    Radiology. 2018 Jun 5:172326. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172326.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  3. PINKER K, Chin J, Melsaether AN, Morris EA, et al
    Precision Medicine and Radiogenomics in Breast Cancer: New Approaches toward Diagnosis and Treatment.
    Radiology. 2018;287:732-747.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    May 2018
  4. MAZARI FAK, Sharma N, Dodwell D, Horgan K, et al
    Human Epidermal Growth Factor 2-positive Breast Cancer with Mammographic Microcalcification: Relationship to Pathologic Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
    Radiology. 2018 May 16:170960. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018170960.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    April 2018
  5. WU J, Cao G, Sun X, Lee J, et al
    Intratumoral Spatial Heterogeneity at Perfusion MR Imaging Predicts Recurrence-free Survival in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
    Radiology. 2018 Apr 27:172462. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172462.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  6. GILLIES RJ, Balagurunathan Y
    Perfusion MR Imaging of Breast Cancer: Insights Using "Habitat Imaging".
    Radiology. 2018 Apr 27:180271. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180271.
    PubMed     Text format    


  7. ROSENBERG RD, Seidenwurm D
    Breast Cancer Screening: Two (or Three) Heads Are Better than One?
    Radiology. 2018 Apr 10:180207. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180207.
    PubMed     Text format    


  8. TAYLOR-PHILLIPS S, Jenkinson D, Stinton C, Wallis MG, et al
    Double Reading in Breast Cancer Screening: Cohort Evaluation in the CO-OPS Trial.
    Radiology. 2018 Apr 10:171010. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171010.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  9. BURNSIDE ES, Vulkan D, Blanks RG, Duffy SW, et al
    Association between Screening Mammography Recall Rate and Interval Cancers in the UK Breast Cancer Service Screening Program: A Cohort Study.
    Radiology. 2018 Apr 3:171539. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171539.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  10. PISANO ED
    Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening?
    Radiology. 2018;287:47-48.
    PubMed     Text format    


    March 2018
  11. KIM GR, Choi JS, Han BK, Lee JE, et al
    Preoperative Axillary US in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Potential to Prevent Unnecessary Axillary Lymph Node Dissection.
    Radiology. 2018 Mar 20:171987. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171987.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  12. BAHL M, Barzilay R, Yedidia AB, Locascio NJ, et al
    High-Risk Breast Lesions: A Machine Learning Model to Predict Pathologic Upgrade and Reduce Unnecessary Surgical Excision.
    Radiology. 2018;286:810-818.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    February 2018
  13. GUNTHER JE, Lim EA, Kim HK, Flexman M, et al
    Dynamic Diffuse Optical Tomography for Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2018 Feb 12:161041. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018161041.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  14. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
    Recall Rate Benchmark for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.
    Radiology. 2018;286:728-729.
    PubMed     Text format    


  15. IMBRIACO M, Cuocolo R
    Does Texture Analysis of MR Images of Breast Tumors Help Predict Response to Treatment?
    Radiology. 2018;286:421-423.
    PubMed     Text format    


  16. CONANT EF, Sprague BL, Kontos D
    Beyond BI-RADS Density: A Call for Quantification in the Breast Imaging Clinic.
    Radiology. 2018;286:401-404.
    PubMed     Text format    


    January 2018
  17. GAO Y, Albert M, Young Lin LL, Lewin AA, et al
    What Happens after a Diagnosis of High-Risk Breast Lesion at Stereotactic Vacuum-assisted Biopsy? An Observational Study of Postdiagnosis Management and Imaging Adherence.
    Radiology. 2018 Jan 29:171665. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171665.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  18. CHEON H, Kim HJ, Kim TH, Ryeom HK, et al
    Invasive Breast Cancer: Prognostic Value of Peritumoral Edema Identified at Preoperative MR Imaging.
    Radiology. 2018 Jan 9:171157. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171157.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  19. ELEZABY M, Li G, Bhargavan-Chatfield M, Burnside ES, et al
    ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
    Radiology. 2018 Jan 9:170770. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170770.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  20. MOY L
    Do Tumor Shrinkage Patterns at Breast MR Imaging Predict Survival?
    Radiology. 2018;286:58-59.
    PubMed     Text format    


    December 2017
  21. BAHL M, Gaffney S, McCarthy AM, Lowry KP, et al
    Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated with 2D Digital Mammography versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Screening-detected and Interval Cancers.
    Radiology. 2017 Dec 22:171148. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171148.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  22. HENDRICK RE
    Obligate Overdiagnosis Due to Mammographic Screening: A Direct Estimate for U.S. Women.
    Radiology. 2017 Dec 21:171622. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171622.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  23. HOFVIND S, Sagstad S, Sebuodegard S, Chen Y, et al
    Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.
    Radiology. 2017 Dec 14:162159. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162159.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  24. CAUMO F, Zorzi M, Brunelli S, Romanucci G, et al
    Digital Breast Tomosynthesis with Synthesized Two-Dimensional Images versus Full-Field Digital Mammography for Population Screening: Outcomes from the Verona Screening Program.
    Radiology. 2017 Dec 13:170745. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170745.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  25. GORDON PB, Berg WA, Jankowitz RC
    Breast Cancer Recurrence after Initial Detection with Screening US.
    Radiology. 2017;285:1054-1055.
    PubMed     Text format    


    November 2017
  26. DIPRETE O, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Mainiero MB, et al
    Screening Digital Mammography Recall Rate: Does It Change with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Experience?
    Radiology. 2017 Nov 28:170517. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170517.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  27. NEUSCHLER EI, Butler R, Young CA, Barke LD, et al
    A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists.
    Radiology. 2017 Nov 27:172228. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017172228.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  28. WEIGEL S, Khil L, Hense HW, Decker T, et al
    Detection Rates of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ with Biannual Digital Mammography Screening: Radiologic Findings Support Pathologic Model of Tumor Progression.
    Radiology. 2017 Nov 6:170673. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170673.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  29. IIMA M, Kataoka M, Kanao S, Onishi N, et al
    Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Quantitative Non-Gaussian Diffusion MR Imaging: Evaluation of the Diagnostic and Prognostic Value of Several Markers of Malignant and Benign Breast Lesions.
    Radiology. 2017 Nov 2:162853. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162853.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  30. FOWLER AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN
    Imaging Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017;285:358-375.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    October 2017
  31. LEE SH, Yi A, Jang MJ, Chang JM, et al
    Supplemental Screening Breast US in Women with Negative Mammographic Findings: Effect of Routine Axillary Scanning.
    Radiology. 2017 Oct 30:171218. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017171218.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  32. RAY KM, Kerlikowske K, Lobach IV, Hofmann MB, et al
    Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices.
    Radiology. 2017 Oct 25:170811. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170811.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  33. NGUYEN TL, Choi YH, Aung YK, Evans CF, et al
    Breast Cancer Risk Associations with Digital Mammographic Density by Pixel Brightness Threshold and Mammographic System.
    Radiology. 2017 Oct 16:170306. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170306.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  34. VREEMANN S, Gubern-Merida A, Schlooz-Vries MS, Bult P, et al
    Influence of Risk Category and Screening Round on the Performance of an MR Imaging and Mammography Screening Program in Carriers of the BRCA Mutation and Other Women at Increased Risk.
    Radiology. 2017 Oct 16:170458. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170458.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  35. CHAMMING'S F, Ueno Y, Ferre R, Kao E, et al
    Features from Computerized Texture Analysis of Breast Cancers at Pretreatment MR Imaging Are Associated with Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.
    Radiology. 2017 Oct 4:170143. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170143.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    September 2017
  36. SALEM K, Kumar M, Powers GL, Jeffery JJ, et al
    18F-16alpha-17beta-Fluoroestradiol Binding Specificity in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017 Sep 25:162956. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162956.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  37. LUO J, Johnston BS, Kitsch AE, Hippe DS, et al
    Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Quantitative Preoperative Breast MR Imaging Features Associated with Recurrence after Treatment.
    Radiology. 2017 Sep 14:170587. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170587.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  38. WOODARD GA, Ray KM, Joe BN, Price ER, et al
    Qualitative Radiogenomics: Association between Oncotype DX Test Recurrence Score and BI-RADS Mammographic and Breast MR Imaging Features.
    Radiology. 2017 Sep 8:162333. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162333.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  39. COLIN C
    Mammographic Density: Is There a Public Health Significance Linked to Published Relative Risk Data?
    Radiology. 2017;284:918-919.
    PubMed     Text format    


    August 2017
  40. ALTUNDAG K
    Association between Computer-aided Diagnosis-measured Peak Enhancement and Washout Component at Preoperative MR Imaging and Operable Hormone Receptor-positive Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017;284:604.
    PubMed     Text format    


  41. LEE JM, Miglioretti DL, Burnside ES, Morris EA, et al
    Mammography Performance Benchmarks in an Era of Value-based Care.
    Radiology. 2017;284:605-607.
    PubMed     Text format    


  42. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
    Diagnostic Outcomes of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography.
    Radiology. 2017;284:610-611.
    PubMed     Text format    


    July 2017
  43. FUKADA I, Araki K, Kobayashi K, Shibayama T, et al
    Pattern of Tumor Shrinkage during Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Is Associated with Prognosis in Low-Grade Luminal Early Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017 Jul 24:161548. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161548.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  44. WU J, Li B, Sun X, Cao G, et al
    Heterogeneous Enhancement Patterns of Tumor-adjacent Parenchyma at MR Imaging Are Associated with Dysregulated Signaling Pathways and Poor Survival in Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017 Jul 14:162823. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162823.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    June 2017
  45. LEE-FELKER SA, Tekchandani L, Thomas M, Gupta E, et al
    Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer: Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Spectral Mammography and Breast MR Imaging in the Evaluation of Extent of Disease.
    Radiology. 2017 Jun 26:161592. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161592.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  46. DISHAROON M, Kozlowski KF, Kaniowski JM
    Case 242: Radiation-induced Angiosarcoma.
    Radiology. 2017;283:909-916.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  47. CONANT EF, Keller BM, Pantalone L, Gastounioti A, et al
    Agreement between Breast Percentage Density Estimations from Standard-Dose versus Synthetic Digital Mammograms: Results from a Large Screening Cohort Using Automated Measures.
    Radiology. 2017;283:673-680.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    May 2017
  48. NAM K, Eisenbrey JR, Stanczak M, Sridharan A, et al
    Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer by Using Three-dimensional Subharmonic Aided Pressure Estimation and Imaging with US Contrast Agents: Preliminary Experience.
    Radiology. 2017 May 3:161683. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161683.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    April 2017
  49. KUHL CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Wardelmann E, et al
    Impact of Preoperative Breast MR Imaging and MR-guided Surgery on Diagnosis and Surgical Outcome of Women with Invasive Breast Cancer with and without DCIS Component.
    Radiology. 2017 Apr 26:161449. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161449.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  50. KIM SY, Han BK, Kim EK, Choi WJ, et al
    Breast Cancer Detected at Screening US: Survival Rates and Clinical-Pathologic and Imaging Factors Associated with Recurrence.
    Radiology. 2017 Apr 6:162348. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162348.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    March 2017
  51. TUCKER L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, Dibden A, et al
    Does Reader Performance with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Vary according to Experience with Two-dimensional Mammography?
    Radiology. 2017 Mar 13:151936. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017151936.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  52. KIM JJ, Kim JY, Kang HJ, Shin JK, et al
    Computer-aided Diagnosis-generated Kinetic Features of Breast Cancer at Preoperative MR Imaging: Association with Disease-free Survival of Patients with Primary Operable Invasive Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017 Mar 2:162079. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162079.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    February 2017
  53. SPRAGUE BL, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL, Henderson LM, et al
    National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Radiology. 2017 Feb 28:161519. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017161519.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  54. D'ORSI CJ, Sickles EA
    2017 Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Reports on Interpretive Performance at Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Welcome New Data, But Not as Benchmarks for Practice.
    Radiology. 2017 Feb 28. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170181.
    PubMed     Text format    


  55. KUHL CK, Strobel K, Bieling H, Leutner C, et al
    Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2017 Feb 21:161444. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2016161444.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  56. AUJERO MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, Zhang Z, et al
    Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.
    Radiology. 2017 Feb 21:162674. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162674.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    January 2017
  57. BOEHM-STURM P, Haeckel A, Hauptmann R, Mueller S, et al
    Low-Molecular-Weight Iron Chelates May Be an Alternative to Gadolinium-based Contrast Agents for T1-weighted Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging.
    Radiology. 2017 Jan 7:170116. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017170116.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    December 2016
  58. LEHMAN CD, Arao RF, Sprague BL, Lee JM, et al
    National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    Radiology. 2016 Dec 5:161174.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    November 2016
  59. SANTAMARIA G, Bargallo X, Fernandez PL, Farrus B, et al
    Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy in Breast Cancer: Association of Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Findings, Diffusion-weighted Imaging Findings, and Tumor Subtype with Tumor Response.
    Radiology. 2016 Nov 22:160176.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    October 2016
  60. BAE MS, Lee SH, Chu AJ, Shin SU, et al
    Preoperative MR Imaging in Women with Breast Cancer Detected at Screening US.
    Radiology. 2016 Oct 6:160706.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


  61. KIM JH, Ko ES, Lim Y, Lee KS, et al
    Breast Cancer Heterogeneity: MR Imaging Texture Analysis and Survival Outcomes.
    Radiology. 2016 Oct 4:160261.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    September 2016
  62. JEFFERS AM, Sieh W, Lipson JA, Rothstein JH, et al
    Breast Cancer Risk and Mammographic Density Assessed with Semiautomated and Fully Automated Methods and BI-RADS.
    Radiology. 2016 Sep 5:152062.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    June 2016
  63. GOMBOS EC, Jayender J, Richman DM, Caragacianu DL, et al
    Intraoperative Supine Breast MR Imaging to Quantify Tumor Deformation and Detection of Residual Breast Cancer: Preliminary Results.
    Radiology. 2016 Jun 22:151472.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    May 2016
  64. BAE MS, Shin SU, Ryu HS, Han W, et al
    Pretreatment MR Imaging Features of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Association with Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Recurrence-Free Survival.
    Radiology. 2016 May 19:152331.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available


    February 2016
  65. PISANO ED
    Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program-Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer Detection.
    Radiology. 2016;278:311-2.
    PubMed     Text format    


Thank you for your interest in scientific medicine.


AMEDEO Breast Cancer is free of charge.
This policy is made possible thanks to a media sponsorship by Boehringer Ingelheim.

Design: