Home The Word Brain	My Amedeo FAQ Privacy About	Flying Publisher
	New Amedeo service: Amedeo COVID-19 (formerly 2019-nCoV) Weekly publication summary

Breast Cancer

Free Subscription Articles published in Radiology Retrieve available abstracts of 109 articles: HTML format Text format

Single Articles

February 2020
1. HEALY NA, O'Brien A, Knox M, Hargaden G, et al
   Consensus Review of Discordant Imaging Findings after the Introduction of Digital Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Cancer Screening Program Experience.
   Radiology. 2020 Feb 11:181454. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020181454.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   
2. PARK AY, Han MR, Park KH, Kim JS, et al
   Radiogenomic Analysis of Breast Cancer by Using B-Mode and Vascular US and RNA Sequencing.
   Radiology. 2020 Feb 4:191368. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191368.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   January 2020
3. COOLEN AMP, Korte B, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Bodewes HW, et al
   Additional Breast Cancer Detection at Digital Screening Mammography through Quality Assurance Sessions between Technologists and Radiologists.
   Radiology. 2020 Jan 7:191388. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191388.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   December 2019
4. BAHL M
   Harnessing the Power of Deep Learning to Assess Breast Cancer Risk.
   Radiology. 2019 Dec 17:192471. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019192471.
   PubMed     Text format    
   
   
   
5. DEMBROWER K, Liu Y, Azizpour H, Eklund M, et al
   Comparison of a Deep Learning Risk Score and Standard Mammographic Density Score for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
   Radiology. 2019 Dec 17:190872. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190872.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   
6. HOVDA T, Holen AS, Lang K, Albertsen JL, et al
   Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway.
   Radiology. 2019 Dec 10:191337. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191337.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   
7. HONG S, Song SY, Park B, Suh M, et al
   Effect of Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of More than 8 Million Korean Women.
   Radiology. 2019 Dec 3:190951. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190951.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   November 2019
8. EUN NL, Kang D, Son EJ, Park JS, et al
   Texture Analysis with 3.0-T MRI for Association of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.
   Radiology. 2019 Nov 26:182718. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182718.
   PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
   
   
   
9. BAE MS
   Using Deep Learning to Predict Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis from US Images of Breast Cancer.
   Radiology. 2019 Nov 19:192339. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019192339.
   PubMed     Text format    
   
   
   
10. ZHOU LQ, Wu XL, Huang SY, Wu GG, et al
    Lymph Node Metastasis Prediction from Primary Breast Cancer US Images Using Deep Learning.
    Radiology. 2019 Nov 19:190372. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190372.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    October 2019
11. SUMKIN JH, Berg WA, Carter GJ, Bandos AI, et al
    Diagnostic Performance of MRI, Molecular Breast Imaging, and Contrast-enhanced Mammography in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2019 Oct 29:190887. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190887.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
12. BENNANI-BAITI B, Krug B, Giese D, Hellmich M, et al
    Evaluation of 3.0-T MRI Brain Signal after Exposure to Gadoterate Meglumine in Women with High Breast Cancer Risk and Screening Breast MRI.
    Radiology. 2019 Oct 22:190847. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190847.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
13. AMORNSIRIPANITCH N, Bickelhaupt S, Shin HJ, Dang M, et al
    Diffusion-weighted MRI for Unenhanced Breast Cancer Screening.
    Radiology. 2019 Oct 8:182789. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182789.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    September 2019
14. GAO Y, Goldberg JE, Young TK, Babb JS, et al
    Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Men: A 12-Year Longitudinal Observational Study of Male Breast Imaging Utilization and Outcomes.
    Radiology. 2019 Sep 17:190971. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190971.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
15. COLIN C, Doutriaux-Dumoulin I
    Breast Cancer Screening in BRCA Mutation Carriers: Necessity of a Relevant Update of Mammographic Modalities.
    Radiology. 2019 Sep 3:191306. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191306.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
16. JOHNSON K, Zackrisson S, Rosso A, Sartor H, et al
    Tumor Characteristics and Molecular Subtypes in Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: The Malmo Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
    Radiology. 2019 Sep 3:190132. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190132.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    August 2019
17. SUNG JS, Lebron L, Keating D, D'Alessio D, et al
    Performance of Dual-Energy Contrast-enhanced Digital Mammography for Screening Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2019 Aug 27:182660. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182660.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
18. WHITMAN GJ
    Can We Use MRI and US to Predict Axillary Node Response in Breast Cancer?
    Radiology. 2019 Aug 13:191642. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191642.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
19. KIM R, Chang JM, Lee HB, Lee SH, et al
    Predicting Axillary Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Breast MRI and US in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2019 Aug 13:190014. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190014.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
20. KONTOS D, Conant EF
    Can AI Help Make Screening Mammography "Lean"?
    Radiology. 2019 Aug 6:191542. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191542.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    July 2019
21. MANN RM
    Do We Need Optoacoustic Assessment of Hypoxia to Differentiate Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer?
    Radiology. 2019 Jul 9:191263. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191263.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
22. SITEK A, Wolfe JM
    Assessing Cancer Risk from Mammograms: Deep Learning Is Superior to Conventional Risk Models.
    Radiology. 2019;292:67-68.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
23. FOWLER AM
    Survival Outcomes for Women with Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in the Era of Supplemental Screening.
    Radiology. 2019;292:49-50.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    June 2019
24. MANN RM, Pinker K
    Is Background Parenchymal Enhancement an Important Risk Factor for Breast Cancer Development in Women with Increased Risk?
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 25:191164. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191164.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
25. THOMPSON CM, Mallawaarachchi I, Dwivedi DK, Ayyappan AP, et al
    The Association of Background Parenchymal Enhancement at Breast MRI with Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 25:182441. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182441.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
26. AKSELROD-BALLIN A, Chorev M, Shoshan Y, Spiro A, et al
    Predicting Breast Cancer by Applying Deep Learning to Linked Health Records and Mammograms.
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 18:182622. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182622.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
27. JOE BN, Hayward JH
    More Lives Risked with Risk-based versus Age-based Breast Cancer Screening.
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 11:191040. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191040.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
28. WERNLI KJ, Ichikawa L, Kerlikowske K, Buist DSM, et al
    Surveillance Breast MRI and Mammography: Comparison in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 4:182475. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182475.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
29. NEWELL MS
    Risk versus Benefit of Surveillance Breast MRI: A Sticky Wicket.
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 4:190991. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190991.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    May 2019
30. EBY PR
    Breast Cancer: Let Imaging Be Our Guide and Improving Patient Outcomes Be Our Goal.
    Radiology. 2019 May 28:190949. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190949.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
31. ROSENBERG RD, Seidenwurm D
    Optimizing Breast Cancer Screening Programs: Experience and Structures.
    Radiology. 2019 May 28:190924. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190924.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
32. HA SM, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Chae EY, et al
    Mammography, US, and MRI to Assess Outcomes of Invasive Breast Cancer with Extensive Intraductal Component: A Matched Cohort Study.
    Radiology. 2019 May 28:182762. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182762.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
33. KORHONEN KE, Conant EF, Cohen EA, Synnestvedt M, et al
    Breast Cancer Conspicuity on Simultaneously Acquired Digital Mammographic Images versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images.
    Radiology. 2019 May 14:182027. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182027.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
34. YALA A, Lehman C, Schuster T, Portnoi T, et al
    A Deep Learning Mammography-based Model for Improved Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
    Radiology. 2019 May 7:182716. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182716.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
35. SIPPO DA, Burk KS, Mercaldo SF, Rutledge GM, et al
    Performance of Screening Breast MRI across Women with Different Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Indications.
    Radiology. 2019 May 7:181136. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019181136.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    April 2019
36. CHOI SH, Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, et al
    Long-term Surveillance of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Detected with Screening Mammography versus US: Factors Associated with Second Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2019 Apr 30:181844. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019181844.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
37. MOY L
    Is Digital Breast Tomosynthesis the Better Mammogram for Local Breast Cancer Staging?
    Radiology. 2019 Apr 9:190590. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190590.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
38. FONTAINE M, Tourasse C, Pages E, Laurent N, et al
    Local Tumor Staging of Breast Cancer: Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis.
    Radiology. 2019 Apr 9:182457. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182457.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
39. PARTRIDGE SC, Newitt DC, Chenevert TL, Rosen MA, et al
    Diffusion-weighted MRI in Multicenter Trials of Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2019 Apr 2:190446. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190446.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
40. LANG K
    The Coming of Age of Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening.
    Radiology. 2019;291:31-33.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    March 2019
41. TAOUREL P
    Diffusion-weighted MRI for Breast Cancer: Why and with What Impact?
    Radiology. 2019 Mar 12:190331. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190331.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
42. KIM JY, Kim JJ, Hwangbo L, Kang T, et al
    Diffusion-weighted Imaging of Invasive Breast Cancer: Relationship to Distant Metastasis-free Survival.
    Radiology. 2019 Mar 12:181706. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019181706.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    February 2019
43. SKAANE P, Bandos AI, Niklason LT, Sebuodegard S, et al
    Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in Breast Cancer Screening: The Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
    Radiology. 2019 Feb 19:182394. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182394.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
44. LI H, Mendel KR, Lan L, Sheth D, et al
    Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer: Additive Value of Radiomics of Breast Parenchyma.
    Radiology. 2019 Feb 12:181113. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019181113.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
45. SHAFFER K
    Mammographic Parenchymal Analysis: Can We Do Better with Digital Assistance?
    Radiology. 2019 Feb 12:190085. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190085.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
46. MAURI G, Sconfienza LM, Sardanelli F
    Imaging-guided Percutaneous Ablation: A Step Forward to Minimize the Invasiveness of Breast Cancer Treatment.
    Radiology. 2019 Feb 5:182448. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182448.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    December 2018
47. BLANKS RG, Wallis MG, Alison R, Kearins O, et al
    Impact of Digital Mammography on Cancer Detection and Recall Rates: 11.3 Million Screening Episodes in the English National Health Service Breast Cancer Screening Program.
    Radiology. 2018 Dec 11:181426. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181426.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
48. LEE CI, Lee JM
    Impact of New Technology Adoption on Breast Cancer Screening.
    Radiology. 2018 Dec 11:182476. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018182476.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    November 2018
49. RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ A, Krupinski E, Mordang JJ, Schilling K, et al
    Detection of Breast Cancer with Mammography: Effect of an Artificial Intelligence Support System.
    Radiology. 2018 Nov 20:181371. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181371.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    October 2018
50. PINKER K
    Beyond Breast Density: Radiomic Phenotypes Enhance Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk.
    Radiology. 2018 Oct 30:182296. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018182296.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
51. KONTOS D, Winham SJ, Oustimov A, Pantalone L, et al
    Radiomic Phenotypes of Mammographic Parenchymal Complexity: Toward Augmenting Breast Density in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.
    Radiology. 2018 Oct 30:180179. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180179.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
52. CHEN Y, Panda A, Pahwa S, Hamilton JI, et al
    Three-dimensional MR Fingerprinting for Quantitative Breast Imaging.
    Radiology. 2018 Oct 30:180836. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180836.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    September 2018
53. PARTRIDGE SC, Zhang Z, Newitt DC, Gibbs JE, et al
    Diffusion-weighted MRI Findings Predict Pathologic Response in Neoadjuvant Treatment of Breast Cancer: The ACRIN 6698 Multicenter Trial.
    Radiology. 2018 Sep 4:180273. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180273.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
54. DESOUZA NM
    Diffusion-weighted MRI in Multicenter Trials of Breast Cancer: A Useful Measure of Tumor Response?
    Radiology. 2018 Sep 4:181717. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181717.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
55. MOY L
    Should We Continue to Biopsy All Amorphous Calcifications?
    Radiology. 2018;288:680-681.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    August 2018
56. ZHANG X, Zheng C, Yang Z, Cheng Z, et al
    Axillary Sentinel Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer: Quantitative Evaluation at Dual-Energy CT.
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 28:180544. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180544.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
57. HYLTON NM
    Residual Disease after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: Can MRI Help?
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 28:181846. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181846.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
58. GARCIA-TEJEDOR A, Guma A, Soler T, Valdivieso A, et al
    Radiofrequency Ablation Followed by Surgical Excision versus Lumpectomy for Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial.
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 21:180235. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180235.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
59. BREM RF
    Radiofrequency Ablation of Breast Cancer: A Step Forward.
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 21:181784. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181784.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
60. PHILPOTTS LE
    Machine Detection of High Breast Density: Worse Outcomes for Our Patients.
    Radiology. 2018;288:353-354.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
61. EISENBERG AM, Eppelheimer CN, Fulop TA, Abramson LL, et al
    Case 256: Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large-Cell Lymphoma.
    Radiology. 2018;288:624-629.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    July 2018
62. SHIN SU, Cho N, Lee HB, Kim SY, et al
    Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Surgery for Breast Cancer: Preoperative MRI Features Associated with Local Recurrence.
    Radiology. 2018 Jul 24:172888. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172888.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
63. JAMSHIDI N, Yamamoto S, Gornbein J, Kuo MD, et al
    Receptor-based Surrogate Subtypes and Discrepancies with Breast Cancer Intrinsic Subtypes: Implications for Image Biomarker Development.
    Radiology. 2018 Jul 24:171118. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171118.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    June 2018
64. MOSHINA N, Sebuodegard S, Lee CI, Akslen LA, et al
    Automated Volumetric Analysis of Mammographic Density in a Screening Setting: Worse Outcomes for Women with Dense Breasts.
    Radiology. 2018 Jun 26:172972. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172972.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
65. OLIGANE HC, Berg WA, Bandos AI, Chen SS, et al
    Grouped Amorphous Calcifications at Mammography: Frequently Atypical but Rarely Associated with Aggressive Malignancy.
    Radiology. 2018 Jun 19:172406. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018172406.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
66. 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
    
    
    
67. 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
    
    
    
68. WHITMAN GJ, Cantor SB
    Effect of Screening Mammography on Other Preventive Services in Older Women.
    Radiology. 2018 Jun 5:180937. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180937.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
69. 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
70. 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
71. 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
    
    
    
72. 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    
    
    
    
73. MENEZES GLG, Pijnappel RM, Meeuwis C, Bisschops R, et al
    Downgrading of Breast Masses Suspicious for Cancer by Using Optoacoustic Breast Imaging.
    Radiology. 2018 Apr 17:170500. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018170500.
    PubMed     Text format     Abstract available
    
    
    
74. 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    
    
    
    
75. 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
    
    
    
76. 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
    
    
    
77. PISANO ED
    Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening?
    Radiology. 2018;287:47-48.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    March 2018
78. 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
    
    
    
79. 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
80. 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
    
    
    
81. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
    Recall Rate Benchmark for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.
    Radiology. 2018;286:728-729.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
82. 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    
    
    
    
83. 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
84. 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
    
    
    
85. 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
    
    
    
86. 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
    
    
    
87. MOY L
    Do Tumor Shrinkage Patterns at Breast MR Imaging Predict Survival?
    Radiology. 2018;286:58-59.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    December 2017
88. 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
    
    
    
89. 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
    
    
    
90. 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
    
    
    
91. 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
    
    
    
92. 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
93. 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
    
    
    
94. 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
    
    
    
95. 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
    
    
    
96. 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
    
    
    
97. 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
98. 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
    
    
    
99. 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
    
    
    
100. 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
     
     
     
101. 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
     
     
     
102. 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
103. 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
     
     
     
104. 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
     
     
     
105. 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
     
     
     
106. 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
107. 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    
     
     
     
108. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
     Diagnostic Outcomes of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography.
     Radiology. 2017;284:610-611.
     PubMed     Text format    
     
     
     January 2017
109. 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
     
     

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: