Home The Word Brain	My Amedeo FAQ Privacy About	Flying Publisher
	COVID Reference, 5th edition, 486 pages Free download

Breast Cancer

Free Subscription Articles published in Radiology Retrieve available abstracts of 133 articles: HTML format

Single Articles

November 2020
1. CAUMO F, Montemezzi S, Romanucci G, Brunelli S, et al
   Repeat Screening Outcomes with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Plus Synthetic Mammography for Breast Cancer Detection: Results from the Prospective Verona Pilot Study.
   Radiology. 2020 Nov 10:201246. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201246.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   October 2020
2. KOSMIN M, Padhani AR, Gogbashian A, Woolf D, et al
   Comparison of Whole-Body MRI, CT, and Bone Scintigraphy for Response Evaluation of Cancer Therapeutics in Metastatic Breast Cancer to Bone.
   Radiology. 2020 Oct 20:192683. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192683.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   
3. ZUCKERMAN SP, Sprague BL, Weaver DL, Herschorn SD, et al
   Multicenter Evaluation of Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Combination with Synthetic versus Digital Mammography.
   Radiology. 2020 Oct 13:200240. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200240.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   
4. LANG K
   Mounting Evidence for Synthetic Mammography in Breast Cancer Screening.
   Radiology. 2020 Oct 13:203716. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020203716.
   PubMed    
   
   
   September 2020
5. MANN RM, Hooley R, Barr RG, Moy L, et al
   Novel Approaches to Screening for Breast Cancer.
   Radiology. 2020 Sep 8:200172. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200172.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   
6. ERIKSSON M, Czene K, Strand F, Zackrisson S, et al
   Identification of Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer Who Need Supplemental Screening.
   Radiology. 2020 Sep 8:201620. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201620.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   August 2020
7. SANKATSING VDV, Juraniec K, Grimm SE, Joore MA, et al
   Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.
   Radiology. 2020 Aug 4:192505. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192505.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   
8. SLANETZ PJ
   Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening for Breast Cancer: It Is Cost-Effective!
   Radiology. 2020 Aug 4:202779. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020202779.
   PubMed    
   
   
   June 2020
9. ULANER GA, Carrasquillo JA, Riedl CC, Yeh R, et al
   Identification of HER2-Positive Metastases in Patients with HER2-Negative Primary Breast Cancer by Using HER2-targeted (89)Zr-Pertuzumab PET/CT.
   Radiology. 2020 Jun 9:192828. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192828.
   PubMed     Abstract available
   
   
   May 2020
10. BISMEIJER T, van der Velden BHM, Canisius S, Lips EH, et al
    Radiogenomic Analysis of Breast Cancer by Linking MRI Phenotypes with Tumor Gene Expression.
    Radiology. 2020 May 26:191453. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191453.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
11. CHO N
    Breast Cancer Radiogenomics: Association of Enhancement Pattern at DCE MRI with Deregulation of mTOR Pathway.
    Radiology. 2020 May 26:201607. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020201607.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
12. GASTOUNIOTI A, Kasi CD, Scott CG, Brandt KR, et al
    Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
    Radiology. 2020 May 12:192509. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192509.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
13. CONANT EF, Zuckerman SP, McDonald ES, Weinstein SP, et al
    Five Consecutive Years of Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Outcomes by Screening Year and Round.
    Radiology. 2020;295:285-293.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    April 2020
14. CHANG JM, Leung JWT, Moy L, Ha SM, et al
    Axillary Nodal Evaluation in Breast Cancer: State of the Art.
    Radiology. 2020 Apr 21:192534. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192534.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
15. TAOUREL P
    Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: The Initial Benefits Continue Over Time.
    Radiology. 2020 Apr 7:200622. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200622.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
16. BAHL M, Mercaldo S, Dang PA, McCarthy AM, et al
    Breast Cancer Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Are Initial Benefits Sustained?
    Radiology. 2020 Apr 7:191030. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191030.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    March 2020
17. KIM JY, Kim JJ, Hwangbo L, Suh HB, et al
    Kinetic Heterogeneity of Breast Cancer Determined Using Computer-aided Diagnosis of Preoperative MRI Scans: Relationship to Distant Metastasis-Free Survival.
    Radiology. 2020 Mar 31:192039. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020192039.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
18. PINKER K
    Preoperative MRI Improves Surgical Planning and Outcomes for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.
    Radiology. 2020 Mar 17:200076. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200076.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
19. YOON GY, Choi WJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, et al
    Surgical Outcomes for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Impact of Preoperative MRI.
    Radiology. 2020 Mar 17:191535. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191535.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
20. KIM WH, Kim HJ, Park CS, Lee J, et al
    Axillary Nodal Burden Assessed with Pretreatment Breast MRI Is Associated with Failed Sentinel Lymph Node Identification after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2020 Mar 3:191639. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191639.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    February 2020
21. LEE CI, Lee JM
    Identifying Effective Supplemental Screening Strategies for Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
    Radiology. 2020 Feb 25:200015. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020200015.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
22. KIM SY, Cho N, Kim SY, Choi Y, et al
    Supplemental Breast US Screening in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cancer: A Matched Cohort Study.
    Radiology. 2020 Feb 25:191691. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191691.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
23. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
24. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    January 2020
25. LUITEN JD, Voogd AC, Luiten EJT, Broeders MJM, et al
    Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program.
    Radiology. 2020 Jan 28:191266. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191266.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
26. ROCHAT CJ, Baird GL, Lourenco AP
    Digital Mammography Stereotactic Biopsy versus Digital Breast Tomosynthesis-guided Biopsy: Differences in Biopsy Targets, Pathologic Results, and Discordance Rates.
    Radiology. 2020 Jan 21:191525. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191525.
    PubMed     Abstract available
    
    
    
27. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    December 2019
28. BAHL M
    Harnessing the Power of Deep Learning to Assess Breast Cancer Risk.
    Radiology. 2019 Dec 17:192471. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019192471.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
29. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
30. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
31. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    November 2019
32. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
33. 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    
    
    
    
34. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    October 2019
35. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
36. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
37. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    September 2019
38. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
39. 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    
    
    
    
40. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    August 2019
41. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
42. 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    
    
    
    
43. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
44. KONTOS D, Conant EF
    Can AI Help Make Screening Mammography "Lean"?
    Radiology. 2019 Aug 6:191542. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019191542.
    PubMed    
    
    
    July 2019
45. 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    
    
    
    
46. SITEK A, Wolfe JM
    Assessing Cancer Risk from Mammograms: Deep Learning Is Superior to Conventional Risk Models.
    Radiology. 2019;292:67-68.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
47. FOWLER AM
    Survival Outcomes for Women with Ductal Carcinoma in Situ in the Era of Supplemental Screening.
    Radiology. 2019;292:49-50.
    PubMed    
    
    
    June 2019
48. 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    
    
    
    
49. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
50. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
51. 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    
    
    
    
52. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
53. NEWELL MS
    Risk versus Benefit of Surveillance Breast MRI: A Sticky Wicket.
    Radiology. 2019 Jun 4:190991. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190991.
    PubMed    
    
    
    May 2019
54. 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    
    
    
    
55. ROSENBERG RD, Seidenwurm D
    Optimizing Breast Cancer Screening Programs: Experience and Structures.
    Radiology. 2019 May 28:190924. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190924.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
56. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
57. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
58. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
59. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    April 2019
60. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
61. 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    
    
    
    
62. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
63. 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    
    
    
    
64. LANG K
    The Coming of Age of Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening.
    Radiology. 2019;291:31-33.
    PubMed    
    
    
    March 2019
65. TAOUREL P
    Diffusion-weighted MRI for Breast Cancer: Why and with What Impact?
    Radiology. 2019 Mar 12:190331. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190331.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
66. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    February 2019
67. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
68. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
69. SHAFFER K
    Mammographic Parenchymal Analysis: Can We Do Better with Digital Assistance?
    Radiology. 2019 Feb 12:190085. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019190085.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
70. 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    
    
    
    December 2018
71. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
72. LEE CI, Lee JM
    Impact of New Technology Adoption on Breast Cancer Screening.
    Radiology. 2018 Dec 11:182476. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018182476.
    PubMed    
    
    
    November 2018
73. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    October 2018
74. PINKER K
    Beyond Breast Density: Radiomic Phenotypes Enhance Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk.
    Radiology. 2018 Oct 30:182296. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018182296.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
75. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
76. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    September 2018
77. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
78. 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    
    
    
    
79. MOY L
    Should We Continue to Biopsy All Amorphous Calcifications?
    Radiology. 2018;288:680-681.
    PubMed    
    
    
    August 2018
80. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
81. HYLTON NM
    Residual Disease after Neoadjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer: Can MRI Help?
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 28:181846. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181846.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
82. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
83. BREM RF
    Radiofrequency Ablation of Breast Cancer: A Step Forward.
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 21:181784. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181784.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
84. PHILPOTTS LE
    Machine Detection of High Breast Density: Worse Outcomes for Our Patients.
    Radiology. 2018;288:353-354.
    PubMed    
    
    
    
85. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    July 2018
86. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
87. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    June 2018
88. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
89. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
90. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
91. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
92. 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    
    
    
    
93. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    May 2018
94. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    April 2018
95. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
96. 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    
    
    
    
97. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
98. 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    
    
    
    
99. 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     Abstract available
    
    
    
100. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
101. PISANO ED
     Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening?
     Radiology. 2018;287:47-48.
     PubMed    
     
     
     March 2018
102. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
103. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     February 2018
104. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
105. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
     Recall Rate Benchmark for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.
     Radiology. 2018;286:728-729.
     PubMed    
     
     
     
106. IMBRIACO M, Cuocolo R
     Does Texture Analysis of MR Images of Breast Tumors Help Predict Response to Treatment?
     Radiology. 2018;286:421-423.
     PubMed    
     
     
     
107. 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    
     
     
     January 2018
108. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
109. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
110. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
111. MOY L
     Do Tumor Shrinkage Patterns at Breast MR Imaging Predict Survival?
     Radiology. 2018;286:58-59.
     PubMed    
     
     
     December 2017
112. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
113. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
114. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
115. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
116. GORDON PB, Berg WA, Jankowitz RC
     Breast Cancer Recurrence after Initial Detection with Screening US.
     Radiology. 2017;285:1054-1055.
     PubMed    
     
     
     November 2017
117. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
118. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
119. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
120. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
121. FOWLER AM, Mankoff DA, Joe BN
     Imaging Neoadjuvant Therapy Response in Breast Cancer.
     Radiology. 2017;285:358-375.
     PubMed     Abstract available
     
     
     October 2017
122. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
123. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
124. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
125. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
126. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     September 2017
127. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
128. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
129. 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     Abstract available
     
     
     
130. COLIN C
     Mammographic Density: Is There a Public Health Significance Linked to Published Relative Risk Data?
     Radiology. 2017;284:918-919.
     PubMed    
     
     
     August 2017
131. 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    
     
     
     
132. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
     Diagnostic Outcomes of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography.
     Radiology. 2017;284:610-611.
     PubMed    
     
     
     January 2017
133. 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     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: