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 70 articles:
HTML format
Text format



Single Articles


    April 2019
  1. 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    


  2. 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


  3. 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    


    March 2019
  4. 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    


  5. 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
  6. 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


  7. 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


  8. 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
  9. 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


  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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    


  13. 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


    September 2018
  14. 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


  15. 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    


  16. MOY L
    Should We Continue to Biopsy All Amorphous Calcifications?
    Radiology. 2018;288:680-681.
    PubMed     Text format    


    August 2018
  17. 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


  18. 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    


  19. 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


  20. BREM RF
    Radiofrequency Ablation of Breast Cancer: A Step Forward.
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 21:181784. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181784.
    PubMed     Text format    


  21. PHILPOTTS LE
    Machine Detection of High Breast Density: Worse Outcomes for Our Patients.
    Radiology. 2018;288:353-354.
    PubMed     Text format    


  22. 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
  23. 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


  24. 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
  25. 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


  26. 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


  27. 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


  28. 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


  29. 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    


  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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


  33. 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    


  34. 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


  35. 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    


  36. 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


  37. 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


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


    March 2018
  39. 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


  40. 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
  41. 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


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


  43. 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    


  44. 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
  45. 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


  46. 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


  47. 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


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


    December 2017
  49. 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


  50. 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


  51. 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


  52. 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


  53. 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
  54. 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


  55. 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


  56. 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


  57. 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


  58. 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
  59. 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


  60. 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


  61. 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


  62. 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


  63. 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
  64. 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


  65. 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


  66. 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


  67. 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
  68. 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    


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


    January 2017
  70. 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: