Home The Word Brain	My Amedeo FAQ Privacy About	Flying Publisher
	Oliena Studio Stroke and language recovery: 9000+ videos Español • Italiano • Sardu • English | PDF+

Breast Cancer

Free Subscription Articles published in Radiology Retrieve available abstracts of 89 articles: HTML format Text format

Single Articles

August 2019
1. 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    
   
   
   
2. 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
   
   
   July 2019
3. 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    
   
   
   
4. 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    
   
   
   
5. 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
6. 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    
   
   
   
7. 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
   
   
   
8. 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
   
   
   
9. 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    
   
   
   
10. 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
    
    
    May 2019
11. 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    
    
    
    
12. 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    
    
    
    
13. 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
    
    
    
14. 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
    
    
    
15. 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
    
    
    
16. 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
17. 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
    
    
    
18. 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    
    
    
    
19. 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
    
    
    
20. 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    
    
    
    
21. LANG K
    The Coming of Age of Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening.
    Radiology. 2019;291:31-33.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    March 2019
22. 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    
    
    
    
23. 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
24. 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
    
    
    
25. 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
    
    
    
26. 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    
    
    
    
27. 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
28. 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
    
    
    
29. 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
30. 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
31. 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    
    
    
    
32. 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
33. 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
    
    
    
34. 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    
    
    
    
35. MOY L
    Should We Continue to Biopsy All Amorphous Calcifications?
    Radiology. 2018;288:680-681.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    August 2018
36. 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
    
    
    
37. 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    
    
    
    
38. 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
    
    
    
39. BREM RF
    Radiofrequency Ablation of Breast Cancer: A Step Forward.
    Radiology. 2018 Aug 21:181784. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018181784.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
40. PHILPOTTS LE
    Machine Detection of High Breast Density: Worse Outcomes for Our Patients.
    Radiology. 2018;288:353-354.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
41. 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
42. 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
    
    
    
43. 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
44. 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
    
    
    
45. 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
    
    
    
46. 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
    
    
    
47. 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
    
    
    
48. 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    
    
    
    
49. 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
50. 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
51. 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
    
    
    
52. 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    
    
    
    
53. 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
    
    
    
54. 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    
    
    
    
55. 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
    
    
    
56. 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
    
    
    
57. PISANO ED
    Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening?
    Radiology. 2018;287:47-48.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    March 2018
58. 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
    
    
    
59. 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
60. 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
    
    
    
61. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
    Recall Rate Benchmark for Screening Breast MR Imaging in Community Practice.
    Radiology. 2018;286:728-729.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    
62. 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    
    
    
    
63. 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
64. 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
    
    
    
65. 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
    
    
    
66. 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
    
    
    
67. MOY L
    Do Tumor Shrinkage Patterns at Breast MR Imaging Predict Survival?
    Radiology. 2018;286:58-59.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    December 2017
68. 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
    
    
    
69. 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
    
    
    
70. 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
    
    
    
71. 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
    
    
    
72. 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
73. 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
    
    
    
74. 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
    
    
    
75. 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
    
    
    
76. 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
    
    
    
77. 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
78. 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
    
    
    
79. 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
    
    
    
80. 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
    
    
    
81. 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
    
    
    
82. 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
83. 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
    
    
    
84. 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
    
    
    
85. 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
    
    
    
86. 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
87. 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    
    
    
    
88. SEIDENWURM D, Breslau J
    Diagnostic Outcomes of Screening and Diagnostic Mammography.
    Radiology. 2017;284:610-611.
    PubMed     Text format    
    
    
    January 2017
89. 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: