Original Article

Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening

Etta D. Pisano, M.D., Constantine Gatsonis, Ph.D., Edward Hendrick, Ph.D., Martin Yaffe, Ph.D., Janet K. Baum, M.D., Suddhasatta Acharyya, Ph.D., Emily F. Conant, M.D., Laurie L. Fajardo, M.D., Lawrence Bassett, M.D., Carl D'Orsi, M.D., Roberta Jong, M.D., and Murray Rebner, M.D. for the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) Investigators Group

N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783October 27, 2005DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa052911

Abstract

Background

Film mammography has limited sensitivity for the detection of breast cancer in women with radiographically dense breasts. We assessed whether the use of digital mammography would avoid some of these limitations.

Full Text of Background...

Methods

A total of 49,528 asymptomatic women presenting for screening mammography at 33 sites in the United States and Canada underwent both digital and film mammography. All relevant information was available for 42,760 of these women (86.3 percent). Mammograms were interpreted independently by two radiologists. Breast-cancer status was ascertained on the basis of a breast biopsy done within 15 months after study entry or a follow-up mammogram obtained at least 10 months after study entry. Receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the results.

Full Text of Methods...

Results

In the entire population, the diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar (difference between methods in the area under the ROC curve, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18). However, the accuracy of digital mammography was significantly higher than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years (difference in the area under the curve, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002), women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts on mammography (difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002).

Full Text of Results...

Conclusions

The overall diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography as a means of screening for breast cancer is similar, but digital mammography is more accurate in women under the age of 50 years, women with radiographically dense breasts, and premenopausal or perimenopausal women. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00008346.)

Full Text of Discussion...

Read the Full Article...

Media in This Article

Figure 1ROC Points and Fitted AUCs for Digital and Film Mammography for the 42,760 Women with Fully Verified Breast-Cancer Status (Panel A), the 14,335 Women under the Age of 50 Years (Panel B), the 19,897 Women with Heterogeneously or Extremely Dense Breasts (Panel C), and the 15,803 Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women (Panel D).

Table 1Characteristics of Eligible Women and Women Whose Cancer Status Was Verified.

Article Activity

451 articles have cited this article

Article

There is now general agreement that screening mammography reduces the rate of death from breast cancer among women who are 40 years of age or older.1,2 Meta-analyses of eight large, randomized trials found a reduction in the mortality rate of 16 to 35 percent among women 50 to 69 years of age who were assigned to screening mammography,1 whereas women who were 40 to 49 years of age at entry had a smaller but significant reduction of 15 to 20 percent.1-3

The smaller benefit of screening in younger women is probably due to a lower incidence of breast cancer, more rapidly growing tumors, and greater radiographic density of breast tissue in women less than 50 years of age.4 Greater density reduces the sensitivity of mammography5,6 and increases the risk of breast cancer.7-9 Digital mammography, which was developed in part to address some of the limitations of film mammography,10 separates image acquisition and display, allowing the optimization of both. Image processing of digital data allows the degree of contrast in the image to be manipulated, so that contrast can be increased in the dense areas of the breast with the lowest contrast.11,12

Despite these apparent differences between the two approaches, previous trials have not found digital mammography to be significantly more accurate than film mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.13-17 These studies were limited, however, in that they included only one type of digital detector and had insufficient statistical power to identify relatively small differences in diagnostic accuracy. The Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST) was designed to measure relatively small but potentially clinically important differences in diagnostic accuracy between digital and film mammography.

Methods

A detailed account of the design of DMIST has been published previously.18 This trial was conducted by the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. During a two-year period, 49,528 women were recruited to the study at 33 sites. The protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at all sites. All women gave written informed consent. The study was monitored by a data and safety monitoring board. Women who presented for screening mammography at the study sites were eligible to participate unless they reported symptoms, had breast implants, believed they might be pregnant, had undergone mammography for any purpose within the preceding 11 months, or had a history of breast cancer treated with both lumpectomy and radiation.

All participants underwent both digital and film mammography in random order. Five digital-mammography systems were used: the SenoScan (Fischer Medical), the Computed Radiography System for Mammography (Fuji Medical), the Senographe 2000D (General Electric Medical Systems), the Digital Mammography System (Hologic), and the Selenia Full Field Digital Mammography System (Hologic).18

The digital and film examinations for each woman were independently interpreted by two radiologists, one reader for each examination. Readers rated the mammograms using a seven-point malignancy scale suitable for receiver-operating-characteristic (ROC) analysis and the classification of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BIRADS)19 and recorded whether they recommended that additional tests be performed. A score of 1 on the seven-point malignancy scale indicates a result that is definitely not malignant, a score of 2 findings that are almost definitely not malignant, a score of 3 findings that are probably not malignant, a score of 4 findings that may be malignant, a score of 5 findings that are probably malignant, a score of 6 findings that are almost definitely malignant, and a score of 7 findings that are definitely malignant. A BIRADS score of 0 indicates incomplete data, a score of 1 negative results, a score of 2 benign findings, a score of 3 findings that are probably benign, a score of 4 the presence of a suspicious-appearing abnormality, and a score of 5 findings highly suggestive of cancer.

Readers also rated breast density according to the standard BIRADS scale (extremely dense, heterogeneously dense, scattered fibroglandular densities, and almost completely fat). Radiologists in the United States were all qualified interpreters of mammograms under federal law. Canadian readers met equivalent standards. Each site's lead radiologist was trained in the use of the malignancy scale and trained the site's other readers.

A workup, including a biopsy or aspiration of the suspicious-appearing lesion, was performed if either reader recommended it. A single pathologist or the principal investigator of the study coded all pathological diagnoses on the basis of a review of the cytologic or histologic material or of the local pathology report. All participants were asked to return for a follow-up mammogram at one year.

To establish a reference standard, participants were classified as positive for cancer if breast cancer was pathologically verified within 455 days after the initial study mammogram and negative for cancer if their study records showed negative findings on a pathology report of a biopsy specimen, if the follow-up mammogram at 1 year was normal, or if both criteria were met. The 455-day period gave women more than a year after study entry to undergo follow-up mammography. Some analyses were repeated with the use of an additional reference standard based on information from the first 365 days after initial mammography, an interval used in other publications on screening mammography.5,6,20-26 The status of participants who were classified as neither positive nor negative for cancer was considered indeterminate if they had a breast biopsy with indeterminate results (owing to insufficient material or an inability to interpret the results); had a follow-up mammogram with a BIRADS score19 of 3, 4, or 5; or died during the follow-up period without receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer. All women whose cancer status was indeterminate had no additional pathological or imaging information available. The reference standard for all other participants who did not fall into these three categories was classified as unknown. Participants with either positive or negative reference-standard status made up the fully verified group.

ROC curves for digital and film mammography were estimated from the pooled data across the study with the use of the malignancy score assigned to each woman at the time of screening mammography and before further workup was conducted. The full areas under the curve (AUCs) were compared with the use of the bivariate, binormal model, which accounts for the paired test design.27,28 A corroborating, nonparametric AUC analysis was also performed.29,30 The AUCs were compared in the entire study cohort (primary study aim) as well as in prespecified subgroups of participants (secondary aims). The latter included subgroups defined according to age (younger than 50 years vs. 50 years or older), breast density (heterogeneously dense or extremely dense vs. less dense), menopausal status (premenopausal or perimenopausal vs. postmenopausal), race (white vs. black vs. other), risk of breast cancer (a lifetime risk of ≥25 percent vs. <25 percent, as determined by the Gail model31), and the four digital-machine manufacturers. The Bonferroni procedure was used to account for the 15 multiple comparisons in the subgroup analysis, with a P value of 0.003 or less considered to indicate statistical significance.

For descriptive purposes, estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the two methods of mammography were computed on the basis of the seven-point malignancy scale, the BIRADS scale, and the presence or absence of a workup recommendation by the radiologist. For this purpose, the scores for the seven-point malignancy scale were dichotomized as negative (score of 1, 2, or 3) and positive (score of 4, 5, 6, or 7), and the BIRADS ratings were dichotomized as negative (score of 1, 2, or 3) and positive (score of 0, 4, or 5). Results were evaluated for 365 and 455 days of follow-up. McNemar's test was used to compare estimates.

The analysis was confined to the fully verified group. We assessed the effect of missing information on disease status by deriving and comparing estimates of AUCs and sensitivity and specificity using methods for correcting for verification bias in the ROC analysis30 and in the comparisons of sensitivity and specificity.28 Both methods incorporate available information on covariates and assume that the verification status depends only on test outcomes and observed covariates.

Results

Study Population

A total of 49,528 women were enrolled in the trial. Of these, 195 (0.4 percent) were subsequently determined to be ineligible and 194 (0.4 percent) withdrew from the study. In addition, 1489 women (3.0 percent) were excluded from the analysis because the study protocol had not been followed at one participating institution, as determined by on-site audits. Thirty-nine additional women were excluded because the same radiologist interpreted both examinations or the radiologist knew the results of the other examination at the time of interpretation, and 12 were excluded because the examinations were technically inadequate (9 with inadequate film examinations and 3 with inadequate digital examinations). Of the 47,599 remaining women, follow-up information was lacking for 4339 (9.1 percent), and 500 (1.1 percent) had an indeterminate cancer status (474 with follow-up mammograms interpreted as having a BIRADS score of 3, 4, or 5; 20 who had insufficient biopsy specimens or nondiagnostic biopsy findings; 6 who died without receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer; and none of whom had definitive information concerning pathological or imaging results). Thus, we were left with data on 42,760 women (86.7 percent of those eligible) for the primary analysis. All interpreted mammograms other than the listed exclusions were included in the analysis, including those obtained from 203 women who underwent only one type of mammography (188 [0.4 percent] underwent film mammography alone, and 15 [0.04 percent] digital mammography alone, primarily owing to equipment malfunctions). Table 1Table 1Characteristics of Eligible Women and Women Whose Cancer Status Was Verified. lists the characteristics of the eligible women and the women who were included in the analysis.

Interpretation of the Images

Using the dichotomized seven-point malignancy scale, we found that 223 women (0.5 percent) had both positive digital and positive film mammograms, 947 women (2.2 percent) had only positive digital mammograms, 832 women (1.9 percent) had only positive film mammograms, and 40,553 women (94.8 percent) had neither positive film nor positive digital examinations. For the remaining 205 women (0.5 percent), interpretations for either digital or film mammograms were missing (187 negative and 3 positive film examinations and 15 negative digital mammograms).

Using the dichotomized BIRADS scale, we found that 1249 women (2.9 percent) had both positive digital and positive film mammograms, 2399 women (5.6 percent) had only positive digital mammograms, 2416 women (5.7 percent) had only positive film mammograms, and 36,696 (85.8 percent) had neither positive film nor positive digital examinations.

Breast Cancers

A total of 335 breast cancers were diagnosed in the DMIST cohort on the basis of reference-standard information during the 455 days after study entry (Table 2Table 2Pathological Diagnosis and Stage of 335 Cancers among Women Referred for a Workup after Initial Imaging.). Of these 335 cancers, 254 (75.8 percent) were diagnosed within 365 days after study mammography and 81 (24.2 percent) were diagnosed between 366 and 455 days after study mammography. The histologic findings and the stage of the breast cancers detected by the two methods were similar.

Diagnostic Performance of Digital and Film Mammography

The diagnostic accuracy of digital and film mammography was similar in the fully verified group, as reflected by a mean (±SE) AUC of 0.78±0.02 for digital mammography and of 0.74±0.02 for film mammography (difference in AUC, 0.03; 95 percent confidence interval, –0.02 to 0.08; P=0.18) (Figure 1AFigure 1ROC Points and Fitted AUCs for Digital and Film Mammography for the 42,760 Women with Fully Verified Breast-Cancer Status (Panel A), the 14,335 Women under the Age of 50 Years (Panel B), the 19,897 Women with Heterogeneously or Extremely Dense Breasts (Panel C), and the 15,803 Premenopausal or Perimenopausal Women (Panel D).). The AUC for digital mammography also did not vary significantly from that for film mammography according to race, the risk of breast cancer, or the type of digital machine used.

The performance of digital mammography was, however, significantly better than that of film mammography among women under the age of 50 years, as compared with those who were at least 50 years of age (AUC for digital mammography, 0.84±0.03; AUC for film mammography, 0.69±0.05; difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.25; P=0.002) (Figure 1B), women classified by the readers as having heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts (AUC for digital mammography, 0.78±0.03; AUC for film mammography, 0.68±0.03; difference, 0.11; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.18; P=0.003) (Figure 1C), and premenopausal or perimenopausal women (AUC for digital mammography, 0.82±0.03; AUC for film mammography, 0.67±0.05; difference, 0.15; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.05 to 0.24; P=0.002) (Figure 1D). The results of the AUC comparison in the full cohort and the prespecified subgroups were qualitatively similar to those obtained in the analysis that corrected for potential verification bias. There was no significant difference in the AUC between digital and film mammography among women 50 years of age or older, women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular densities, and postmenopausal women.

Table 3Table 3Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital and Film Mammography with the Use of the Seven-Point Malignancy Scale after 455 Days of Follow-up. and Table 4Table 4Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital and Film Mammography with the Use of the BIRADS Score after 365 Days of Follow-up. show estimates of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of each method on the basis of the seven-point malignancy scale after 455 days of follow-up and the BIRADS scale after 365 days of follow-up, dichotomized at each possible threshold. The tables also show digital and film mammography in terms of their sensitivities and specificities, computed at the main thresholds specified above. Detailed results of statistical analyses for sensitivity and specificity with the use of the seven-point malignancy scale at the 365-day follow-up and the BIRADS scale at the 455-day follow-up are provided in the Supplementary Appendix (available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org). When the comparisons of sensitivities and specificities were adjusted for verification bias, the results were qualitatively similar.

Discussion

We found that digital mammography was significantly better than conventional film mammography at detecting breast cancer in young women, premenopausal and perimenopausal women, and women with dense breasts. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between digital and film mammography in the population as a whole or in other predefined subgroups. However, digital mammography offers other advantages over film mammography — namely, easier access to images and computer-assisted diagnosis; improved means of transmission, retrieval, and storage of images; and the use of a lower average dose of radiation without a compromise in diagnostic accuracy.32 We believe that the significant improvement in accuracy in specific subgroups of women justifies the use of digital mammography in these groups.

Our results are understandable in the light of the technical advantages of digital mammography over film mammography. In a digital image, the x-ray transmission can be manipulated to enhance visualization of subtle structural changes in tissue over the entire breast. For mammograms, the most problematic areas are those in which cancers can be hidden by adjacent dense tissue owing to small differences in contrast between lesions and the fibroglandular background. The visibility of a subtle mass or cluster of calcifications present in the image can be increased if the image contrast is adjusted.33,34

DMIST did not measure mortality end points. The assumption inherent in the design of the trial is that screening mammography reduces the rate of death from breast cancer and that if digital mammography detects cancers at a rate that equals or exceeds that of film mammography, its use in screening is likely to reduce the risk of death by as much as or more than that conferred by film mammography. The evidence supporting this view is given in Table 2. The cancers detected by digital mammography and missed by film mammography in women under the age of 50 years, women with heterogeneously dense or extremely dense breasts, and premenopausal and perimenopausal women included many invasive and high-grade in situ cases. These are precisely the lesions that must be detected early to save lives through screening. Neither digital nor film mammography found all the breast cancers in the population. Palpable findings and symptoms that develop after screening should be evaluated even if a woman has negative findings on digital mammography.

Why were the sensitivities of both digital and film mammography measured in this study apparently lower than the sensitivities in other studies?20-23 Estimates of sensitivity depend on the definition used.24 We considered any woman presenting with breast cancer within 455 days after study entry to have been positive for breast cancer at the time of her initial screening mammogram. All women with negative findings on mammography at study entry who had breast cancer at the annual follow-up mammography were thus considered to have false negative results for the analysis. The longer follow-up interval was selected to allow study sites to complete the one-year follow-up and subsequent workup. Some of the cancers detected up to 455 days after study entry were probably present at the time of the initial mammogram, but the use of the 455-day follow-up interval for reporting estimates of diagnostic accuracy is unconventional. Table 4 gives estimates of the diagnostic performance of both digital and film mammography at all cutoff points of the BIRADS scale during the 365-day follow-up period. This allows our estimates of diagnostic performance to be compared with those of others.22,23,25

Although the lead radiologists at each site were trained in the use of the seven-point malignancy scale and they then trained the other radiologists interpreting mammograms, this scale has not been used in other large, published studies. Our results using the BIRADS or follow-up scales can more readily be compared with those published elsewhere.5,6,25 In addition, the percentage of the total population recalled for further workup (14.0 percent) is relatively high, because women underwent two screening tests (digital and film mammography), not just one. The call-back rate of 8.4 percent for both digital and film mammography is similar to or lower than those reported elsewhere for U.S. screening programs.21,26,35

One of the major impediments to the adoption of digital mammography will be its cost: digital systems currently cost approximately 1.5 to 4 times as much as film systems. As part of DMIST, we are performing a formal cost-effectiveness analysis and study of the quality of life of asymptomatic women.

Supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (U01CA80098, U01CA80098-S1, U01CA79778, and U0179778-S1).

This article was published at www.nejm.org on September 16, 2005.

We are indebted to the many people at the headquarters of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network and at the recruiting sites for their important contributions to the study; to the radiologists, physicists, and research associates at the clinical sites; to Dennis Fryback, Anna Tosteson, Shahla Masood, Bruce Hillman, Mitchell Schnall, Thomas Caldwell, Stephen King, Charles Apgar, Irene Mahon, Sophia Sabina, Bernadine Dunning, Jamie Downs, Tess Thompson, Heather Wallace, Elaine Pakuris, Donna Hartfeil, Jessie Flaim-Spetsas, Boris Ginsburgs, Sharon Jones, Maria Oh, Rex Welsh, Tim Welsh, Fraser Wilton, Anthony Levering, Anita Murray, Brenda Young, Cheryl Crozier, Mary Kelly Truran, Chris Steward, Thomas Iarocci, Crystal Wright, Janet Vogel, Karan Boparai, Rolma Mancinow, Josephine Schloesser, Sharlene Snowdon, Vish Iyer, JoAnn Stetz, Robert Smith, and the other members of the data and safety monitoring board; to Aili Bloomquist, Gordon Mawdsley, Sam Shen, Mary Brown, Elodia Cole, Beverly Currence, Cherie Kuzmiak, Ann Sherman, Jason Hauser, Dag Pavic, Marcia Koomen, Robert McLelland, Richard Clark, Christopher Parham, Robyn Ellison, Carolyn Kylstra, Sharon Weeks, Rachel Campbell, Emily Wilde, and the following members of the American College of Radiology Biostatistics Center: Lucy Hanna, Alicia Toledano, Ben Herman, Minran Li, Jean Cormack, Prashni Paliwal, Shang-Ying Shiu, and Helga Marques; and to the late Jo-Ann D'Amato for her important work on this project.

Source Information

From the Departments of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering, the Biomedical Research Imaging Center, and the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill (E.D.P.); the Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I. (C.G., S.A.); the Department of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago (E.H.); the Departments of Medical Imaging (M.Y., R.J.) and Medical Biophysics (M.Y.), University of Toronto, Toronto; the Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston (J.K.B.); the Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Medical School, Philadelphia (E.F.C.); the Department of Radiology, University of Iowa, Iowa City (L.L.F.); the Department of Radiology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles (L.B.); the Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta (C.D.); and the Department of Radiology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich. (M.R.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Pisano at etta_pisano@med.unc.edu.

Members of the DMIST Investigators Group are listed in the Appendix.

Appendix

The following persons served as principal investigators (PIs) or lead physicists (LPs) at the DMIST clinical sites: Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh — W. Poller (PI), J. Och (LP); Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston — J. Baum (PI), R. Zamenhof (LP); Brown University, Providence, R.I. — B. Schepps (PI), D. Shearer (LP); Columbia University, New York — S.J. Smith (PI), E. Nickoloff (LP); Elizabeth Wende Breast Clinic, Rochester, N.Y. — E. Bonaccio (PI), M. Zuley (PI), A. Tibold (LP); Emory University, Atlanta — C. D'Orsi (PI), P. Sprawls (LP); Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore — N. Khouri (PI), M. Mahesh (LP); LaGrange Hospital, LaGrange, Ill. — T. Merrill (PI), C. Vyborny (PI), R. Nishikawa (LP); Lahey Clinic, Burlington, Mass. — R.B. Shah (PI), N. Shaikh (LP); Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston — D. Georgian-Smith (PI), J. Quattrochi (LP); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York — M. Cohen (PI), R. Fleischman (LP); H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Fla. — A.P. Romilly (PI), K. Coleman (LP); Monmouth County Hospital, Long Branch, N.J. — M. Staiger (PI), T. Piccoli (LP); Mount Sinai University, New York — S. Feig (PI), Jose Burgos (LP); Northwestern University, Chicago — R.E. Hendrick (PI), E. Berns (LP); Shore Memorial Hospital, Somers Point, N.J. — R. Menghetti (PI), J. Law (LP); Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia — C. Piccoli (PI), A. Maidment (LP), E. Gingold (LP); University of California at Davis, Davis — K. Lindfors (PI), A. Seibert (LP), J. Boone (LP); University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles — L. Bassett (PI), V. Cooper (LP); University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati — M. Mahoney (PI), R. Samaratunga (LP); University of Colorado, Denver — P. Isaacs (PI), J. Lewin (PI), F. Larke (LP); University of Iowa, Iowa City — L. Fajardo (PI), K. Berbaum (LP), M. Madsen (LP); University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill — E. Pisano (PI), R.E. Johnston (LP); University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia — E. Conant (PI), M. O'Shea (LP), A. Maidment (LP); University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas — W.P. Evans III (PI), M. Hatab (LP); University of Toronto, Toronto — M. Yaffe (PI), A. Bloomquist (LP), G. Mawdsley (LP); University of Virginia, Charlottesville — J. Harvey (PI), M. Williams (LP); University of Washington, Seattle — A. Freitas (PI), K. Kanal (LP); Washington Radiology Associates, Washington, D.C. — L. Glassman (PI), J. Greenberg (PI), M. Goodwill (LP); Washington University, St. Louis — D. Farria (PI), G. Fletcher (LP); William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich. — M. Rebner (PI), D. Bakalyar (LP).

References

References

1. 1

   Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347-360
   Web of Science | Medline

2. 2

   Institute of Medicine. Saving women's lives: integration and innovation: a framework for progress in early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2005.
   

3. 3

   Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1672-1680
   Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

4. 4

   Buist DSM, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1432-1440
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

5. 5

   Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:168-175[Erratum, Ann Intern Med 2003;138:771.]
   Web of Science | Medline

6. 6

   Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

7. 7

   Wolfe JN. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 1976;37:2486-2492
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

8. 8

   Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1622-1629
   CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

9. 9

   Boyd NF, Dite GS, Stone J, et al. Heritability of mammographic density, a risk for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:886-894
   Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

10. 10

    Shtern F. Digital mammography and related technologies: a perspective from the National Cancer Institute. Radiology 1992;183:629-630
    Web of Science | Medline

11. 11

    Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ, Hemminger BM, et al. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:266-280
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

12. 12

    Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005;234:353-361
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

13. 13

    Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004;11:879-886
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

14. 14

    Hendrick RE, Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Non-inferiority study of FFDM in an enriched diagnostic cohort: comparison with screen-film mammography in 625 women. In: Yaffe MJ, ed. IWDM 2000: 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Madison, Wis.: Medical Physics Publishing, 2001:475-81.
    

15. 15

    Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:671-677
    Web of Science | Medline

16. 16

    Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading -- Oslo I study. Radiology 2003;229:877-884
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

17. 17

    Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program -- the Oslo II Study. Radiology 2004;232:197-204
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

18. 18

    Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236:404-412
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

19. 19

    Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va.: American College of Radiology, 2003.
    

20. 20

    Duffy SW, Chen HH, Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Paci E. Sojourn time, sensitivity and positive predictive value of mammography screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-49. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:1139-1145
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

21. 21

    Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove MR, Wells WA Carney PA. Mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000;217:832-840
    Web of Science | Medline

22. 22

    Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2004;329:477-477
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

23. 23

    Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-367
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

24. 24

    Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Hunt WC, et al. Effect of variations in operational definitions on performance estimates for screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:1058-1068
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

25. 25

    Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:1001-1008
    Web of Science | Medline

26. 26

    Smith-Bindman R, Ballard-Barbash R, Miglioretti DL, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. The performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. J Med Screen 2005;12:50-54
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

27. 27

    Metz C, Wang P, Kronman HA. New approach for testing the significance of differences between ROC curves measured from correlated data. In: Deconinck F, ed. Information processing in medical imaging. The Hague, the Netherlands: Nijihoff, 1984.
    

28. 28

    Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical methods in diagnostic medicine. New York: John Wiley, 2002.
    

29. 29

    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

30. 30

    Toledano AY, Gatsonis C. Generalized estimating equations for ordinal categorical data: arbitrary patterns of missing responses and missingness in a key covariate. Biometrics 1999;55:488-496
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

31. 31

    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989;81:1879-1886
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

32. 32

    Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Mawdsley GE, et al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST. Med Phys (in press).
    

33. 33

    Pisano ED, Cole EB, Major S, et al. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. Radiology 2000;216:820-830
    Web of Science | Medline

34. 34

    Pisano ED, Cole EB, Hemminger BM, et al. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2000;20:1479-1491
    Web of Science | Medline

35. 35

    Ghate SV, Soo MS, Baker JA, Walsh R, Gimenez EI, Rosen EL. Comparison of recall and cancer detection rates for immediate versus batch interpretation of screening mammograms. Radiology 2005;235:31-35
    CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline

Citing Articles (451)

Citing Articles

1. 1

   Yulei Jiang. (2013) On the Shape of the Population ROC Curve. Academic Radiology 20:7, 897-907
   

2. 2

   Robert M. Nishikawa, Lorenzo L. Pesce. (2013) Estimating Sensitivity and Specificity for Technology Assessment Based on Observer Studies. Academic Radiology 20:7, 825-830
   

3. 3

   , D. G. Evans, S. Thomas, J. Caunt, L. Roberts, A. Howell, M. Wilson, R. Fox, D. M. Sibbering, S. Moss, M. G. Wallis, D. M. Eccles, S. Duffy. (2013) Mammographic surveillance in women aged 35–39 at enhanced familial risk of breast cancer (FH02). Familial Cancer
   

4. 4

   R Harpaz, W DuMouchel, P LePendu, A Bauer-Mehren, P Ryan, N H Shah. (2013) Performance of Pharmacovigilance Signal-Detection Algorithms for the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 93:6, 539-546
   

5. 5

   Aimee Mackey, Rachel Greenup, E. Shelley Hwang. (2013) New Treatment Paradigms for Patients with Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. Current Breast Cancer Reports 5:2, 86-98
   

6. 6

   Erin W. Hofstatter, Liva Andrejeva, Anees B. Chagpar. (2013) State of the Art in Imaging and Chemoprevention for High-Risk Patients. Current Breast Cancer Reports 5:2, 125-133
   

7. 7

   Meteb Al-Foheidi, Mubarak M. Al-Mansour, Ezzeldin M. Ibrahim. (2013) Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries. Medical Oncology 30:2,
   

8. 8

   Jocelyne Chopier, Patrice Taourel, Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara. (2013) Particularités de l’imagerie des cancers du sein chez les femmes jeunes et mutées. Imagerie de la Femme 23:2, 76-86
   

9. 9

   Mary C. Mahoney, Mary S. Newell. (2013) Screening MR Imaging Versus Screening Ultrasound. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America
   

10. 10

    Gerald Gartlehner, Kylie J Thaler, Andrea Chapman, Angela Kaminski, Dominik Berzaczy, Megan G Van Noord, Thomas H Helbich. (2013) Adjunct ultrasonography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk: a systematic review. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare 11:2, 87-93
    

11. 11

    M.B.I. Lobbes, M.L. Smidt, J. Houwers, V.C. Tjan-Heijnen, J.E. Wildberger. (2013) Contrast enhanced mammography: Techniques, current results, and potential indications. Clinical Radiology
    

12. 12

    Hilde Bosmans, An Hauwere, Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens, Chantal Ongeval, Koen Herck, Andre Steen, Patrick Martens, Luc Bleyen, Gretel Putte, Eliane Kellen, Griet Mortier, Erik Limbergen. (2013) Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography. European Radiology
    

13. 13

    David Schuster, Javier Rivera, Brittany C. Sellers, Stephen M. Fiore, Florian Jentsch. (2013) Perceptual training for visual search. Ergonomics1-15
    

14. 14

    Usama Mahmood, Alexandra L. Hanlon, Matthew Koshy, Robert Buras, Saranya Chumsri, Katherine H. Tkaczuk, Sally B. Cheston, William F. Regine, Steven J. Feigenberg. (2013) Increasing National Mastectomy Rates for the Treatment of Early Stage Breast Cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology 20:5, 1436-1443
    

15. 15

    Jessica Chubak, Carolyn M. Rutter, Aruna Kamineni, Eric A. Johnson, Natasha K. Stout, Noel S. Weiss, V. Paul Doria-Rose, Chyke A. Doubeni, Diana S.M. Buist. (2013) Measurement in Comparative Effectiveness Research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44:5, 513-519
    

16. 16

    Adriana MJ Bluekens, Mireille JM Broeders, Gerard J den Heeten. (2013) Digital mammography in breast cancer screening: a step forward?. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 13:5, 505-507
    

17. 17

    G H de Bock, K M Vermeulen, L Jansen, J C Oosterwijk, S Siesling, M D Dorrius, T Feenstra, N Houssami, M J W Greuter. (2013) Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness. British Journal of Cancer 108:8, 1579-1586
    

18. 18

    Gisella Gennaro, R. Edward Hendrick, Alicia Toledano, Jean R. Paquelet, Elisabetta Bezzon, Roberta Chersevani, Cosimo Maggio, Manuela Grassa, Luigi Pescarini, Ilaria Polico, Alessandro Proietti, Enrica Baldan, Fabio Pomerri, Pier Carlo Muzzio. (2013) Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. European Radiology
    

19. 19

    Dana H. Smetherman. (2013) Screening, Imaging, and Image-Guided Biopsy Techniques for Breast Cancer. Surgical Clinics of North America 93:2, 309-327
    

20. 20

    Pontus Timberg, Kristina Lång, Marcus Nyström, Kenneth Holmqvist, Philippe Wagner, Daniel Förnvik, Anders Tingberg, Sophia Zackrisson. (2013) Investigation of viewing procedures for interpretation of breast tomosynthesis image volumes: a detection-task study with eye tracking. European Radiology 23:4, 997-1005
    

21. 21

    Ningqi Hou, Dezheng Huo. (2013) A trend analysis of breast cancer incidence rates in the United States from 2000 to 2009 shows a recent increase. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 138:2, 633-641
    

22. 22

    , J. Blanch, M. Sala, M. Román, M. Ederra, D. Salas, R. Zubizarreta, M. Sanchez, M. Rué, X. Castells. (2013) Cumulative risk of cancer detection in breast cancer screening by protocol strategy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 138:3, 869-877
    

23. 23

    Lin Chen, Craig K Abbey, John M Boone. (2013) Association between power law coefficients of the anatomical noise power spectrum and lesion detectability in breast imaging modalities. Physics in Medicine and Biology 58:6, 1663-1681
    

24. 24

    Jessica E. Cott Chubiz, Janie M. Lee, Michael E. Gilmore, Chung Y. Kong, Kathryn P. Lowry, Elkan F. Halpern, Pamela M. McMahon, Paula D Ryan, G. Scott Gazelle. (2013) Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancer 119:6, 1266-1276
    

25. 25

    Stefanie Weigel, Cornelis Biesheuvel, Shoma Berkemeyer, Harald Kugel, Walter Heindel. (2013) Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment?. European Radiology 23:3, 684-691
    

26. 26

    C. Colin, V. Prince, P.J. Valette. (2013) Can mammographic assessments lead to consider density as a risk factor for breast cancer?. European Journal of Radiology 82:3, 404-411
    

27. 27

    Patrice Taourel, Emma Pagès-Bouic, Fernanda Curros-Doyon, Chakib Alili, Ingrid Millet-Cenac. (2013) Tomosynthèse : pourquoi, quand, comment ?. Imagerie de la Femme 23:1, 21-28
    

28. 28

    M. Mellado, A.M. Osa, A. Murillo, R. Bermejo, A. Burguete, M.J. Pons, N. Erdozain. (2013) Influencia de la mamografía digital en la detección y manejo de microcalcificaciones. Radiología 55:2, 142-147
    

29. 29

    Fabiano H. Souza, Eliana M. Wendland, Maria I. Rosa, Carisi A. Polanczyk. (2013) Is full-field digital mammography more accurate than screen-film mammography in overall population screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Breast
    

30. 30

    M. Mellado, A.M. Osa, A. Murillo, R. Bermejo, A. Burguete, M.J. Pons, N. Erdozain. (2013) Impact of digital mammography in the detection and management of microcalcifications. Radiología (English Edition) 55:2, 142-147
    

31. 31

    Paulo Mazzoncini de Azevedo-Marques, Rangaraj Mandayam Rangayyan. (2013) Content-based Retrieval of Medical Images: Landmarking, Indexing, and Relevance Feedback. Synthesis Lectures on Biomedical Engineering 8:1, 1-143
    

32. 32

    Katrina Armstrong, Elizabeth A. Handorf, Jinbo Chen, Mirar N. Bristol Demeter. (2013) Breast Cancer Risk Prediction and Mammography Biopsy Decisions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 44:1, 15-22
    

33. 33

    Celine M Vachon, Erin EE Fowler, Gail Tiffenberg, Christopher G Scott, V Shane Pankratz, Thomas A Sellers, John J Heine. (2013) Comparison of percent density from raw and processed full-field digital mammography data. Breast Cancer Research 15:1, R1
    

34. 34

    Eun Sook Ko, Boo-Kyung Han, Sun Mi Kim, Eun Young Ko, Mijung Jang, Chae Yeon Lyou, Jung Min Chang, Woo Kyung Moon, Rock Bum Kim. (2013) Comparison of New and Established Full-Field Digital Mammography Systems in Diagnostic Performance. Korean Journal of Radiology 14:2, 164
    

35. 35

    Christian Waldherr, Peter Cerny, Hans J. Altermatt, Gilles Berclaz, Michele Ciriolo, Katharina Buser, Martin J. Sonnenschein. (2013) Value of One-View Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Two-View Mammography in Diagnostic Workup of Women With Clinical Signs and Symptoms and in Women Recalled From Screening. American Journal of Roentgenology 200:1, 226-231
    

36. 36

    Soon Ho Yoon, Kyoung Ho Lee, Jin Mo Goo, Su Jeong Kim, Eun-Kyung Kim, Jung Hwan Baek, Yun Ku Cho, Kyung Soo Lee, Tae-Hwan Lim, Seong Ho Park. (2013) First Step for Clinical Trial in the Korean Society of Radiology: A Panel Discussion. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology 68:2, 157
    

37. 37

    Christina M. L. Hsu, Mark L. Palmeri, W. Paul Segars, Alexander I. Veress, James T. Dobbins. (2013) Generation of a suite of 3D computer-generated breast phantoms from a limited set of human subject data. Medical Physics 40:4, 043703
    

38. 38

    Jennifer A. Harvey, David E. March. Finding Cancers in Dense Tissue. In: Making the Diagnosis: A Practical Guide to Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2013:319-349.
    

39. 39

    Louise M. Henderson, Rebecca A. Hubbard, Tracy L. Onega, Weiwei Zhu, Diana S. M. Buist, Paul Fishman, Anna N. A. Tosteson. (2012) Assessing Health Care Use and Cost Consequences of a New Screening Modality. Medical Care 50:12, 1045-1052
    

40. 40

    Rebecca A. Hubbard, Weiwei Zhu, Tracy L. Onega, Paul Fishman, Louise M. Henderson, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Diana S. M. Buist. (2012) Effects of Digital Mammography Uptake on Downstream Breast-related Care Among Older Women. Medical Care 50:12, 1053-1059
    

41. 41

    J. Nederend, L. E. M. Duijm, M. W. J. Louwman, J. H. Groenewoud, A. B. Donkers-van Rossum, A. C. Voogd. (2012) Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study. Annals of Oncology 23:12, 3098-3103
    

42. 42

    Scott D. Gronlund, Curt A. Carlson, Jeffrey S. Neuschatz, Charles A. Goodsell, Stacy A. Wetmore, Alex Wooten, Michael Graham. (2012) Showups versus lineups: An evaluation using ROC analysis. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 1:4, 221-228
    

43. 43

    J. M. Timmers, G. J. den Heeten, E. M. Adang, J. D. Otten, A. L. Verbeek, M. J. Broeders. (2012) Dutch digital breast cancer screening: implications for breast cancer care. The European Journal of Public Health 22:6, 925-929
    

44. 44

    Muthu Rama Krishnan Mookiah, U. Rajendra Acharya, E.Y.K. Ng. (2012) Data mining technique for breast cancer detection in thermograms using hybrid feature extraction strategy. Quantitative InfraRed Thermography Journal 9:2, 151-165
    

45. 45

    Young-Wook Choi, Hye-Suk Park, Ye-seul Kim, Hee-Joung Kim, Jae-Gu Choi. (2012) Effect of acquisition parameters on digital breast tomosynthesis: Total angular range and number of projection views. Journal of the Korean Physical Society 61:11, 1877-1883
    

46. 46

    Suzanne M. Mahon. (2012) Screening for Breast Cancer: Evidence and Recommendations. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 16:6, 567-571
    

47. 47

    Bhuey Sharma, Axel Martin, Susannah Stanway, Stephen R. D. Johnston, Anastasia Constantinidou. (2012) Imaging in oncology—over a century of advances. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
    

48. 48

    Xavier Bargalló, Martín Velasco, Gorane Santamaría, Montse Amo, Pedro Arguis, Sonia Sánchez Gómez. (2012) Role of Computer-Aided Detection in Very Small Screening Detected Invasive Breast Cancers. Journal of Digital Imaging
    

49. 49

    Y. Zhao, E. Brun, P. Coan, Z. Huang, A. Sztrokay, P. C. Diemoz, S. Liebhardt, A. Mittone, S. Gasilov, J. Miao, A. Bravin. (2012) High-resolution, low-dose phase contrast X-ray tomography for 3D diagnosis of human breast cancers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:45, 18290-18294
    

50. 50

    J. Desreux, V. Bleret, E. Lifrange. (2012) Should we individualize breast cancer screening?. Maturitas 73:3, 202-205
    

51. 51

    Alexander Poellinger. (2012) Near-infrared imaging of breast cancer using optical contrast agents. Journal of Biophotonics 5:11-12, 815-826
    

52. 52

    Thanh M. Cabral, Rangaraj M. Rangayyan. (2012) Fractal Analysis of Breast Masses in Mammograms. Synthesis Lectures on Biomedical Engineering 7:2, 1-118
    

53. 53

    Xavier Bargalló, Gorane Santamaría, Martín Velasco, Montse del Amo, Pedro Arguis, Marta Burrel, Sebastian Capurro. (2012) Mammographic features of screening detected pT1 (a–b) invasive breast cancer using BI-RADS lexicon. European Journal of Radiology 81:10, 2620-2626
    

54. 54

    Trafton Drew, Corbin Cunningham, Jeremy M. Wolfe. (2012) When and Why Might a Computer-aided Detection (CAD) System Interfere with Visual Search? An Eye-tracking Study. Academic Radiology 19:10, 1260-1267
    

55. 55

    Vivian van Breest Smallenburg, Wikke Setz-Pels, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Adri C. Voogd, Frits H. Jansen, Marieke W.J. Louwman, Alexander V. Tielbeek, Lucien E.M. Duijm. (2012) Malpractice claims following screening mammography in The Netherlands. International Journal of Cancer 131:6, 1360-1366
    

56. 56

    ELIZABETH D. FELDMAN, BRIDGET A. OPPONG, SHAWNA C. WILLEY. (2012) Breast Cancer Screening. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 55:3, 662-670
    

57. 57

    Linei Urban, Cícero Urban. (2012) Role of Mammography versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Breast Cancer Screening. Current Breast Cancer Reports 4:3, 216-223
    

58. 58

    Vivian van Breest Smallenburg, Lucien E.M. Duijm, Adri C. Voogd, Frits H. Jansen, Marieke W.J. Louwman. (2012) Mammographic changes resulting from benign breast surgery impair breast cancer detection at screening mammography. European Journal of Cancer 48:14, 2097-2103
    

59. 59

    M. Adnan Nadir, Sushma Rekhraj, Li Wei, Tiong K. Lim, John Davidson, Thomas M. MacDonald, Chim C. Lang, Ellie Dow, Allan D. Struthers. (2012) Improving the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events by Using Biomarkers to Identify Individuals With Silent Heart Disease. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 60:11, 960-968
    

60. 60

    Patrick B. Ryan, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, J. Marc Overhage, Judith A. Racoosin, Abraham G. Hartzema. (2012) Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership. Statistics in Medicinen/a-n/a
    

61. 61

    Elodia B. Cole, Zheng Zhang, Helga S. Marques, Robert M. Nishikawa, R. Edward Hendrick, Martin J. Yaffe, Wittaya Padungchaichote, Cherie Kuzmiak, Jatuporn Chayakulkheeree, Emily F. Conant, Laurie L. Fajardo, Janet Baum, Constantine Gatsonis, Etta Pisano. (2012) Assessing the Stand-Alone Sensitivity of Computer-Aided Detection With Cancer Cases From the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. American Journal of Roentgenology 199:3, W392-W401
    

62. 62

    Heidi D. Nelson. Breast Cancer Screening. In: Cancer and Aging Handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012:125-138.
    

63. 63

    Andrew Karellas. (2012) Photon-Counting Digital Mammography. Academic Radiology 19:8, 913-915
    

64. 64

    José Luiz B. Bevilacqua, Michael W. Kattan, Yu Changhong, Sergio Koifman, Inês E. Mattos, Rosalina J. Koifman, Anke Bergmann. (2012) Nomograms for Predicting the Risk of Arm Lymphedema after Axillary Dissection in Breast Cancer. Annals of Surgical Oncology 19:8, 2580-2589
    

65. 65

    M. Mellado Rodríguez, A.M. Osa Labrador. (2012) Cribado de cáncer de mama. Estado actual. Radiología
    

66. 66

    Catherine S. Giess, Elisabeth P. Frost, Robyn L. Birdwell. (2012) Difficulties and Errors in Diagnosis of Breast Neoplasms. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 33:4, 288-299
    

67. 67

    Silvio R. Pires, Regina B. Medeiros. (2012) Mammographic system performance using an image reading qualification method. Radiological Physics and Technology 5:2, 213-221
    

68. 68

    J. M. H Timmers, A. L. M. Verbeek, M. J. M Broeders, G. J. Heeten, H. M. Zonderland. (2012) Veranderingen in bevolkingsonderzoek borstkanker. Huisarts en wetenschap 55:7, 296-300
    

69. 69

    Wendie A. Berg, Jeffrey D. Blume, Jean B. Cormack, Ellen B. Mendelson. (2012) Training the ACRIN 6666 Investigators and Effects of Feedback on Breast Ultrasound Interpretive Performance and Agreement in BI-RADS Ultrasound Feature Analysis. American Journal of Roentgenology 199:1, 224-235
    

70. 70

    Yeong Yi An, Sung Hun Kim, Bong Joo Kang. (2012) Characteristic features and usefulness of MRI in breast cancer in patients under 40 years old: correlations with conventional imaging and prognostic factors. Breast Cancer
    

71. 71

    Nehmat Houssami, Karla Kerlikowske. (2012) The Impact of Breast Density on Breast Cancer Risk and Breast Screening. Current Breast Cancer Reports 4:2, 161-168
    

72. 72

    D. Bernardi, M. Pellegrini, S. Michele, P. Tuttobene, C. Fantò, M. Valentini, M. Gentilini, S. Ciatto. (2012) Interobserver agreement in breast radiological density attribution according to BI-RADS quantitative classification. La radiologia medica 117:4, 519-528
    

73. 73

    Stephen W Duffy, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Tony Hsiu-Hsi Chen, Sam Li-Sheng Chen, Sherry Yueh-Hsia Chiu, Jean Jean-Yu Fan, Robert A Smith, Bedrich Vitak, Laszlo Tabar. (2012) Long-term benefits of breast screening. Breast Cancer Management 1:1, 31-38
    

74. 74

    Mallory E. Kremer, Catherine Downs-Holmes, Ronald D. Novak, Janice A. Lyons, Paula Silverman, Ramya M. Pham, Donna M. Plecha. (2012) Neglecting to Screen Women Between the Ages of 40 and 49 Years With Mammography: What Is the Impact on Breast Cancer Diagnosis?. American Journal of Roentgenology 198:5, 1218-1222
    

75. 75

    Elodia B. Cole, Alicia Y. Toledano, Mats Lundqvist, Etta D. Pisano. (2012) Comparison of Radiologist Performance with Photon-Counting Full-Field Digital Mammography to Conventional Full-Field Digital Mammography. Academic Radiology
    

76. 76

    Brandon D. Gallas, Heang-Ping Chan, Carl J. D’Orsi, Lori E. Dodd, Maryellen L. Giger, David Gur, Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Charles E. Metz, Kyle J. Myers, Nancy A. Obuchowski, Berkman Sahiner, Alicia Y. Toledano, Margarita L. Zuley. (2012) Evaluating Imaging and Computer-aided Detection and Diagnosis Devices at the FDA. Academic Radiology 19:4, 463-477
    

77. 77

    David Martínez-Ramos, Marta Ribeiro González, José María del Val Gil, Miguel Alcalde Sánchez, José Luis Salvador Sanchis. (2012) Seguimiento del cáncer de mama en la mujer joven. Revisión de la bibliografía y propuesta de un protocolo. Revista de Senología y Patología Mamaria 25:2, 60-67
    

78. 78

    C. Schem, F.K.W. Schäfer. (2012) Bildgebende Diagnostik beim duktalen Carcinoma in situ der weiblichen Brust (DCIS). Der Gynäkologe
    

79. 79

    Maria Sala, Dolores Salas, Raquel Zubizarreta, Nieves Ascunce, Montse Rué, Xavier Castells. (2012) Situación de la investigación en el cribado de cáncer de mama en España: implicaciones para la prevención. Gaceta Sanitaria
    

80. 80

    Melvin D'Anastasi, Salvina Zrinzo, Nadine Delicata, Joe V. Psaila. (2012) The Implementation of the National Breast Screening Program in the Maltese Islands. Journal of the American College of Radiology 9:3, 210-213
    

81. 81

    R. Edward Hendrick, Mark A. Helvie. (2012) Mammography Screening: A New Estimate of Number Needed to Screen to Prevent One Breast Cancer Death. American Journal of Roentgenology 198:3, 723-728
    

82. 82

    Robert M. Nishikawa, Robert A. Schmidt, Michael N. Linver, Alexandra V. Edwards, John Papaioannou, Margaret A. Stull. (2012) Clinically Missed Cancer: How Effectively Can Radiologists Use Computer-Aided Detection?. American Journal of Roentgenology 198:3, 708-716
    

83. 83

    Marilyn A. Roubidoux. (2012) Breast Cancer and Screening in American Indian and Alaska Native Women. Journal of Cancer Education
    

84. 84

    Xuexiang Ying, Yanping Lin, Xiaotian Xia, Bin Hu, Zhuhua Zhu, Pingqing He. (2012) A Comparison of Mammography and Ultrasound in Women with Breast Disease: A Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis. The Breast Journalno-no
    

85. 85

    Toshiki Kazama, Yoshifumi Kuroki, Mari Kikuchi, Yasunori Sato, Takeshi Nagashima, Yukimasa Miyazawa, Masahiro Sakakibara, Katsuhiko Kaneoya, Yumi Makimoto, Hideyuki Hashimoto, Ken Motoori, Hideyuki Takano. (2012) Diffusion-weighted MRI as an adjunct to mammography in women under 50 years of age: An initial study. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imagingn/a-n/a
    

86. 86

    Alistair Mackenzie, David R. Dance, Adam Workman, Mary Yip, Kevin Wells, Kenneth C. Young. (2012) Conversion of mammographic images to appear with the noise and sharpness characteristics of a different detector and x-ray system. Medical Physics 39:5, 2721
    

87. 87

    Vivian van Breest Smallenburg, Lucien E.M. Duijm, Adri C. Voogd, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Frits H. Jansen, Mike van Beek, Marieke W.J. Louwman. (2012) Lower sensitivity of screening mammography after previous benign breast surgery. International Journal of Cancer 130:1, 122-128
    

88. 88

    Joost Nederend, Lucien EM Duijm, Adri C Voogd, Johanna H Groenewoud, Frits H Jansen, Marieke WJ Louwman. (2012) Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study. Breast Cancer Research 14:1, R10
    

89. 89

    C.J. D'Orsi. (2012) Accuracy of Screening Mammography in Older Women. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 23:2, 150-151
    

90. 90

    Ho Kyung Kim, Chang Hwy Lim, Jesse Tanguay, Seungman Yun, Ian A. Cunningham. (2012) Spectral analysis of fundamental signal and noise performances in photoconductors for mammography. Medical Physics 39:5, 2478
    

91. 91

    Kelly Lambert, Neill Patani, Kefah Mokbel. (2012) Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. International Journal of Surgical Oncology 2012, 1-11
    

92. 92

    Lucy M. Warren, Alistair Mackenzie, Julie Cooke, Rosalind M. Given-Wilson, Matthew G. Wallis, Dev P. Chakraborty, David R. Dance, Hilde Bosmans, Kenneth C. Young. (2012) Effect of image quality on calcification detection in digital mammography. Medical Physics 39:6, 3202
    

93. 93

    Michael O Idowu, Linday Bonner Hardy, Rhona J Souers, Raouf E Nakhleh. (2012) Pathologic Diagnostic Correlation With Breast Imaging Findings: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 48 Institutions. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine 136:1, 53-60
    

94. 94

    Nicholas W. Marshall, Kim Lemmens, Hilde Bosmans. (2012) Physical evaluation of a needle photostimulable phosphor based CR mammography system. Medical Physics 39:2, 811
    

95. 95

    Toshiko Arai. (2012) 2. Mammography. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 68:3, 347-361
    

96. 96

    Hao Jing, Yongyi Yang, Miles N. Wernick, Laura M. Yarusso, Robert M. Nishikawa. (2012) A comparison study of image features between FFDM and film mammogram images. Medical Physics 39:7, 4386
    

97. 97

    Paul C. Pearlman, Arthur Adams, Sjoerd G. Elias, Willem P. Th. M. Mali, Max A. Viergever, Josien P. W. Pluim. (2012) Mono- and multimodal registration of optical breast images. Journal of Biomedical Optics 17:8, 080901
    

98. 98

    Robert M. Nishikawa, Joshua J. Fenton, Colin G. Orton. (2012) Computer-aided detection should be used routinely to assist screening mammogram interpretation. Medical Physics 39:9, 5305
    

99. 99

    Sung Eun Song, Bo Kyoung Seo, An Yie, Bon Kyung Ku, Hee-Young Kim, Kyu Ran Cho, Hwan Hoon Chung, Seung Hwa Lee, Kyu-Won Hwang. (2012) Which Phantom Is Better for Assessing the Image Quality in Full-Field Digital Mammography?: American College of Radiology Accreditation Phantom versus Digital Mammography Accreditation Phantom. Korean Journal of Radiology 13:6, 776
    

100. 100

     Zhi Ven Fong, Jordan M. Winter. (2012) Biomarkers in Pancreatic Cancer. The Cancer Journal 18:6, 530-538
     

101. 101

     Clarisse Dromain, Fabienne Thibault, Felix Diekmann, Eva M Fallenberg, Roberta A Jong, Marcia Koomen, R Edward Hendrick, Anne Tardivon, Alicia Toledano. (2012) Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results of a multireader, multicase study. Breast Cancer Research 14:3, R94
     

102. 102

     Cecilia M. Brennecke. Opening Round. In: Breast Imaging: Case Review Series. Elsevier, 2012:1-102.
     

103. 103

     Sunil Amalraj, Arash Naeim. Approach to Cancer Diagnosis. In: Management of Cancer in the Older Patient. Elsevier, 2012:31-38.
     

104. 104

     Nariya Cho, Woo Kyung Moon. (2012) Breast Cancer Screening with MRI. Journal of the Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 16:1, 1
     

105. 105

     Irene Ma, Amylou Dueck, Richard Gray, Nabil Wasif, Marina Giurescu, Roxanne Lorans, Victor Pizzitola, Barbara Pockaj. (2011) Clinical and Self Breast Examination Remain Important in the Era of Modern Screening. Annals of Surgical Oncology
     

106. 106

     Valentina Assi, Jane Warwick, Jack Cuzick, Stephen W. Duffy. (2011) Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 9:1, 33-40
     

107. 107

     Michael Stamatakos, Charikleia Stefanaki, Konstantinos Xiromeritis, Niki Pavlerou, Konstantinos Kontzoglou. (2011) Breast cancer in reproductive age. The new plaque or just myth?. Surgical Oncology 20:4, e169-e174
     

108. 108

     Rachel L WARD, David SPEAKMAN, Michael A HENDERSON. (2011) The adverse implications of the transition from film to digital mammography for performing surveillance in patients with a history of breast cancer or significant risk factors for the disease. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology 7:4, 364-368
     

109. 109

     Rachel Zenuk Garcia, Scott C. Carvajal, Anna V. Wilkinson, Patricia A. Thompson, Jesse N. Nodora, Ian K. Komenaka, Abenaa Brewster, Giovanna I. Cruz, Betsy C. Wertheim, Melissa L. Bondy, María Elena Martínez. (2011) Factors that influence mammography use and breast cancer detection among Mexican-American and African-American women. Cancer Causes & Control
     

110. 110

     John T. Brinton, Lora D. Barke, Mary E. Freivogel, Stacy Jackson, Colin I. O’Donnell, Deborah H. Glueck. (2011) Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in 64,659 Women at a Single High-Volume Mammography Clinic. Academic Radiology
     

111. 111

     Gelareh Sadigh, Aine M. Kelly, Angela Fagerlin, Ruth C. Carlos. (2011) Patient Preferences in Breast Cancer Screening. Academic Radiology 18:11, 1333-1336
     

112. 112

     Paul F. Pinsky, B. Gallas. (2011) Enriched designs for assessing discriminatory performance - analysis of bias and variance. Statistics in Medicinen/a-n/a
     

113. 113

     Monica Morrow, Janet Waters, Elizabeth Morris. (2011) MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. The Lancet 378:9805, 1804-1811
     

114. 114

     Garth H. Rauscher, Kristi L. Allgood, Steve Whitman, Emily Conant. (2011) Disparities in Screening Mammography Services by Race/Ethnicity and Health Insurance. Journal of Women's Health120104062605001
     

115. 115

     C.Z. Uche, W.H. Round, M.J. Cree. (2011) Evaluation of two Compton camera models for scintimammography. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment
     

116. 116

     Selin Carkaci, Lumarie Santiago, Beatriz E. Adrada, Gary J. Whitman. (2011) Screening for Breast Cancer with Sonography. Seminars in Roentgenology 46:4, 285-291
     

117. 117

     Elena B. Elkin, Deborah A. Marshall, Nathalie A. Kulin, Ilia L. Ferrusi, Michael J. Hassett, Uri Ladabaum, Kathryn A. Phillips. (2011) Economic evaluation of targeted cancer interventions: Critical review and recommendations. Genetics in Medicine 13:10, 853-860
     

118. 118

     Jay A. Baker, Joseph Y. Lo. (2011) Breast Tomosynthesis. Academic Radiology 18:10, 1298-1310
     

119. 119

     A. Evans, P. Whelehan. (2011) Breast screening policy: Are we heading in the right direction?. Clinical Radiology 66:10, 915-919
     

120. 120

     Karla Kerlikowske. (2011) Screening mammography in women less than age 50 years. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology1
     

121. 121

     F. Collettini, J. C. Martin, F. Diekmann, E. Fallenberg, F. Engelken, S. Ponder, T. J. Kroencke, B. Hamm, A. Poellinger. (2011) Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone. European Radiology
     

122. 122

     Warner , Ellen , . (2011) Breast-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine 365:11, 1025-1032
     Full Text

123. 123

     Anders Tingberg, Sophia Zackrisson. (2011) Digital mammography and tomosynthesis for breast cancer diagnosis. Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics1-10
     

124. 124

     Steven A. Narod. (2011) Screening of women at high risk for breast cancer. Preventive Medicine 53:3, 127-130
     

125. 125

     C. Romero Castellano, C. Varela Nuñez, R. Cuena Boy, A. Almenar Gil, J.M. Pinto Varela, M. Botella Lopez. (2011) Impact of mammographic breast density on computer-assisted detection (CAD) in a breast imaging department. Radiología (English Edition) 53:5, 456-461
     

126. 126

     Laia Domingo, Anabel Romero, Francesc Belvis, Mar Sánchez, Joana Ferrer, Dolores Salas, Josefa Ibáñez, Alfonso Vega, Francesc Ferrer, M. Soledad Laso, Francesc Macià, Xavier Castells, Maria Sala. (2011) Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. European Radiology 21:9, 2020-2028
     

127. 127

     Ghada K. Gouhar, Mona A. El-Hariri, Wael E. Lotfy. (2011) Malignant breast tumours: Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted images and dynamic contrast-enhancement ratio with histologic grading. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
     

128. 128

     Philippe Autier. (2011) Breast cancer screening. European Journal of Cancer 47, S133-S146
     

129. 129

     Rianne de Gelder, Jacques Fracheboud, Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk, Gerard den Heeten, André L.M. Verbeek, Mireille J.M. Broeders, Gerrit Draisma, Harry J. de Koning. (2011) Digital mammography screening: Weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis. Preventive Medicine 53:3, 134-140
     

130. 130

     Nehmat Houssami, Stefano Ciatto. (2011) The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. Preventive Medicine 53:3, 123-126
     

131. 131

     Carolyn M. Rutter, Amy B. Knudsen, Pari V. Pandharipande. (2011) Computer Disease Simulation Models. Academic Radiology 18:9, 1077-1086
     

132. 132

     Anoek H J Verschuur-Maes, Carla H van Gils, Maurice A A J van den Bosch, Peter C De Bruin, Paul J van Diest. (2011) Digital mammography: more microcalcifications, more columnar cell lesions without atypia. Modern Pathology 24:9, 1191-1197
     

133. 133

     Roman Goldenberg, Nathan Peled. (2011) Computer-aided simple triage. International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery 6:5, 705-711
     

134. 134

     M. Kalathaki, C. J. Hourdakis, S. Economides, P. Tritakis, N. Kalyvas, G. Simantirakis, G. Manousaridis, I. Kaisas, V. Kamenopoulou. (2011) COMPARISON OF FULL FIELD DIGITAL (FFD) AND COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY (CR) MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEMS IN GREECE. Radiation Protection Dosimetry
     

135. 135

     D. A. Berry. (2011) Computer-Assisted Detection and Screening Mammography: Where's the Beef?. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:15, 1139-1141
     

136. 136

     Robert M. Nishikawa, Lorenzo L. Pesce. (2011) Fundamental limitations in developing computer-aided detection for mammography. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 648, S251-S254
     

137. 137

     Felix Diekmann, Ulrich Bick. (2011) Breast Tomosynthesis. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 32:4, 281-287
     

138. 138

     Todd A. Alonzo, John T. Brinton, Brandy M. Ringham, Deborah H. Glueck. (2011) Bias in estimating accuracy of a binary screening test with differential disease verification. Statistics in Medicine 30:15, 1852-1864
     

139. 139

     S. W. Fletcher. (2011) Breast Cancer Screening: A 35-Year Perspective. Epidemiologic Reviews 33:1, 165-175
     

140. 140

     Pao-Chu Yu, Yi-Wei Lee, Fong-Fu Chou, Shih-Chung Wu, Chung-Cheng Huang, Shu-Hang Ng, Shyr-Ming Sheen-Chen, Sheung-Fat Ko. (2011) Clustered microcalcifications of intermediate concern detected on digital mammography: Ultrasound assessment. The Breast
     

141. 141

     Howard B. Fleishon, Christoph Wald, Ron Korn, Seth Rosenthal, Nancy Fredericks. (2011) The Clinical Research Center: A Vital Part of the ACR Mission. Journal of the American College of Radiology 8:6, 422-427
     

142. 142

     Frank W. Samuelson. (2011) Two-sample models with monotonic likelihood ratios for ordinal regression. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 55:3, 223-228
     

143. 143

     C. Romero Castellano, C. Varela Nuñez, R. Cuena Boy, A. Almenar Gil, J.M. Pinto Varela, M. Botella Lopez. (2011) Impacto de la densidad mamaria mamográfica en el funcionamiento de un sistema de detección asistido por ordenador en una unidad de patología mamaria. Radiolog&#xED;a
     

144. 144

     Harpreet Singh, Sumeet Dua. Supervised Classification of Digital Mammograms. In: Data Mining in Biomedical Imaging, Signaling, and Systems. Auerbach Publications, 2011:285-318.
     

145. 145

     Nicholas M. Perry, N. Patani, S. E. Milner, K. Pinker, K. Mokbel, P. C. Allgood, S. W. Duffy. (2011) The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit. European Radiology 21:4, 676-682
     

146. 146

     Stephanie M. W. Y. Ven, Niculae Mincu, Jean Brunette, Guobin Ma, Mario Khayat, Debra M. Ikeda, Sanjiv S. Gambhir. (2011) Molecular Imaging Using Light-Absorbing Imaging Agents and a Clinical Optical Breast Imaging System—a Phantom Study. Molecular Imaging and Biology 13:2, 232-238
     

147. 147

     Felix Diekmann, Martin Freyer, Susanne Diekmann, Eva M. Fallenberg, Thomas Fischer, Ulrich Bick, Alexander Pöllinger. (2011) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. European Journal of Radiology 78:1, 112-121
     

148. 148

     R de Gelder, G Draisma, E A M Heijnsdijk, H J de Koning. (2011) Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths. British Journal of Cancer 104:7, 1214-1220
     

149. 149

     R. Roman, M. Sala, D. Salas, N. Ascunce, R. Zubizarreta, X. Castells, . (2011) Effect of protocol-related variables and women's characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Annals of Oncology
     

150. 150

     G van Schoor, S M Moss, J D M Otten, R Donders, E Paap, G J den Heeten, R Holland, M J M Broeders, A L M Verbeek. (2011) Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. British Journal of Cancer 104:6, 910-914
     

151. 151

     Julie A. Guidroz, Carol E.H. Scott-Conner, Ronald J. Weigel. (2011) Management of pregnant women with breast cancer. Journal of Surgical Oncology 103:4, 337-340
     

152. 152

     J Sabadell, R Figueras, J M Margarit, E Martín, L Terès, F Serra-Graells. (2011) A 70μm × 70μm CMOS digital active pixel sensor for digital mammography and X-ray imaging. Journal of Instrumentation 6:03, C03002-C03002
     

153. 153

     Dror Lederman, Bin Zheng, Xingwei Wang, Xiao Hui Wang, David Gur. (2011) Improving Breast Cancer Risk Stratification Using Resonance-Frequency Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Through Fusion of Multiple Classifiers. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 39:3, 931-945
     

154. 154

     Stephen Feig. (2011) Comparison of Costs and Benefits of Breast Cancer Screening with Mammography, Ultrasonography, and MRI. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America 38:1, 179-196
     

155. 155

     Regina J. Hooley, Liva Andrejeva, Leslie M. Scoutt. (2011) Breast Cancer Screening and Problem Solving Using Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Ultrasound Quarterly 27:1, 23-47
     

156. 156

     Arifa Sadaf, Pavel Crystal, Anabel Scaranelo, Thomas Helbich. (2011) Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers. European Journal of Radiology 77:3, 457-461
     

157. 157

     Gautam S. Muralidhar, Alan C. Bovik, Mehul P. Sampat, Gary J. Whitman, Tamara Miner Haygood, Tanya W. Stephens, Mia K. Markey. (2011) Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 78:2, 280-290
     

158. 158

     Neill Patani, Yazan Khaled, Sara Al Reefy, Kefah Mokbel. (2011) Ductal carcinoma in-situ: An update for clinical practice. Surgical Oncology 20:1, e23-e31
     

159. 159

     R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, B. Adamietz, M. Meier-Meitinger, E. Wenkel, M. Lell, K. Anders, M. Uder. (2011) Vergleich der Dignitätsbestimmung von mammographischem Mikrokalk mit zwei Systemen zur digitalen Vollfeldmammographie unterschiedlicher Detektorauflösung. Der Radiologe 51:2, 126-129
     

160. 160

     Marco Bertolini, Andrea Nitrosi, Giovanni Borasi, Andrea Botti, Davide Tassoni, Roberto Sghedoni, Giulio Zuccoli. (2011) Contrast Detail Phantom Comparison on a Commercially Available Unit. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) versus Full-Field Digital Mammography (FFDM). Journal of Digital Imaging 24:1, 58-65
     

161. 161

     R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, E. Wenkel, B. Adamietz, M. Lell, K. Anders, M. Uder. (2011) Erste Untersuchungen zur Detektion simulierter mammographischer Läsionen. Der Radiologe 51:2, 130-134
     

162. 162

     Donna Taylor, Joanne Lazberger, Angela Ives, Elizabeth Wylie, Christobel Saunders. (2011) Reducing delay in the diagnosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: How imaging can help us. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 55:1, 33-42
     

163. 163

     Bin Zheng, Dror Lederman, Jules H. Sumkin, Margarita L. Zuley, Michelle Z. Gruss, Linda S. Lovy, David Gur. (2011) A Preliminary Evaluation of Multi-probe Resonance-frequency Electrical Impedance Based Measurements of the Breast. Academic Radiology 18:2, 220-229
     

164. 164

     P. Boyle, C. J. Chapman, S. Holdenrieder, A. Murray, C. Robertson, W. C. Wood, P. Maddison, G. Healey, G. H. Fairley, A. C. Barnes, J. F. R. Robertson. (2011) Clinical validation of an autoantibody test for lung cancer. Annals of Oncology 22:2, 383-389
     

165. 165

     Martin J Yaffe. (2011) Developing a quality control program for digital mammography: achievements so far and challenges to come. Imaging in Medicine 3:1, 123-133
     

166. 166

     Daphne Tsoi, Claire Holloway, Louise Bordeleau, Christine Brezden-Masley, Petrina Causer, Ellen Warner. (2011) Willingness of breast cancer survivors to participate in a randomized controlled trial of digital mammography with or without MRI as breast cancer surveillance: A feasibility study. The Breast 20:1, 96-98
     

167. 167

     C. Colin, A.-M. Schott. (2011) Re: Breast Tissue Composition and Susceptibility to Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:1, 77-77
     

168. 168

     Dror Lederman, Bin Zheng, Xingwei Wang, Jules H. Sumkin, David Gur. (2011) A GMM-based breast cancer risk stratification using a resonance-frequency electrical impedance spectroscopy. Medical Physics 38:3, 1649
     

169. 169

     G. S. Patel, T. Kiuchi, K. Lawler, E. Ofo, G. O. Fruhwirth, M. Kelleher, E. Shamil, R. Zhang, P. R. Selvin, G. Santis, J. Spicer, N. Woodman, C. E. Gillett, P. R. Barber, B. Vojnovic, G. Kéri, T. Schaeffter, V. Goh, M. J. O'Doherty, P. A. Ellis, T. Ng. (2011) The challenges of integrating molecular imaging into the optimization of cancer therapy. Integrative Biology 3:6, 603
     

170. 170

     Nicholas A. Shkumat, Adam Springer, Christopher M. Walker, Eric M. Rohren, Wei T. Yang, Beatriz E. Adrada, Elsa Arribas, Selin Carkaci, Hubert H. Chuang, Lumarie Santiago, Osama R. Mawlawi. (2011) Investigating the limit of detectability of a positron emission mammography device: A phantom study. Medical Physics 38:9, 5176
     

171. 171

     Andrew J Evans, Jonathan J James. Overview of Radiologic Aspects of Breast Disease. In: Breast Pathology. Elsevier, 2011:34-52.
     

172. 172

     Liane E. Philpotts. (2011) Comprehensive Breast Imaging 2010. Seminars in Roentgenology 46:1, 7-17
     

173. 173

     Katja Pinker, Nicholas Perry, S. Vinnicombe, S. Shiel, M. Weber. (2011) Conspicuity of breast cancer according to histopathological type and breast density when imaged by full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography. European Radiology 21:1, 18-25
     

174. 174

     Kathryn P. Lowry, Janie M. Lee, Chung Y. Kong, Pamela M. McMahon, Michael E. Gilmore, Jessica E. Cott Chubiz, Etta D. Pisano, Constantine Gatsonis, Paula D. Ryan, Elissa M. Ozanne, G. Scott Gazelle. (2011) Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. Cancern/a-n/a
     

175. 175

     Amy C. Degnim, Judy C. Boughey. Screening for Breast Cancer. In: Current Surgical Therapy. Elsevier, 2011:512-515.
     

176. 176

     R. Edward Hendrick, Debra M. Ikeda. Mammography Acquisition. In: Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2011:1-23.
     

177. 177

     Ellen Warner, Petrina A. Causer, John W-N. Wong, Frances C. Wright, Roberta A. Jong, Kimberley A. Hill, Sandra J. Messner, Martin J. Yaffe, Steven A. Narod, Donald B. Plewes. (2011) Improvement in DCIS Detection Rates by MRI Over Time in a High-Risk Breast Screening Study. The Breast Journal 17:1, 9-17
     

178. 178

     John M. Lewin. Radiologic Techniques for Early Detection and Diagnosis. In: Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer Series: Breast Cancer. Elsevier, 2011:125-139.
     

179. 179

     Steve H. Parker, Terese I. Kaske, Judy L. Chavez. Minimally Invasive Breast Biopsy. In: Early Diagnosis and Treatment of Cancer Series: Breast Cancer. Elsevier, 2011:151-174.
     

180. 180

     R. James Brenner. Medical-Legal Aspects of Breast Imaging and Intervention. In: Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2011:728-739.
     

181. 181

     Lawrence W. Bassett, Richard H. Gold. History of Breast Imaging. In: Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2011:3-24.
     

182. 182

     Robyn L. Birdwell, Ronald A. Castellino. Computer-Aided Detection. In: Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2011:99-109.
     

183. 183

     Carl J. D'Orsi. Emerging X-Ray-Based and Nuclear Technologies. In: Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2011:743-750.
     

184. 184

     Stephen A. Feig, Stephen W. Duffy. Screening Results, Controversies, and Guidelines. In: Breast Imaging. Elsevier, 2011:56-75.
     

185. 185

     Susan P. Weinstein. Screening Mammography. In: Radiology Secrets Plus. Elsevier, 2011:29-33.
     

186. 186

     Weimin Han, Joseph A. Eichholz, Xiaoliang Cheng, Ge Wang. (2011) A Theoretical Framework of X-Ray Dark-Field Tomography. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 71:5, 1557-1577
     

187. 187

     J. Chopier, A. Jalaguier-Coudray, I. Thomassin-Naggara. (2011) Variations du sein normal. Aspects mammographiques et échographiques. EMC - Radiologie et imagerie médicale - Génito-urinaire - Gynéco-obstétricale - Mammaire 6:2, 1-16
     

188. 188

     I. Thomassin-Naggara, C. Salem, L. Ceugnart, L. Thomassin, J. Chopier. (2011) Technique de la mammographie : de l'analogique au numérique. EMC - Radiologie et imagerie médicale - Génito-urinaire - Gynéco-obstétricale - Mammaire 6:2, 1-14
     

189. 189

     Kimberly D Gregory, George F Sawaya. (2010) Updated recommendations for breast cancer screening. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 22:6, 498-505
     

190. 190

     Jennifer L. Griffin, Mark D. Pearlman. (2010) Breast Cancer Screening in Women at Average Risk and High Risk. Obstetrics & Gynecology 116:6, 1410-1421
     

191. 191

     Danielle J. Haakinson, Chee-Chee H. Stucky, Amylou C. Dueck, Richard J. Gray, Nabil Wasif, Heidi A. Apsey, Barbara Pockaj. (2010) A significant number of women present with palpable breast cancer even with a normal mammogram within 1 year. The American Journal of Surgery 200:6, 712-718
     

192. 192

     Sandhya Pruthi, Bobbie S. Gostout, Noralane M. Lindor. (2010) Identification and Management of Women With BRCA Mutations or Hereditary Predisposition for Breast and Ovarian Cancer. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 85:12, 1111-1120
     

193. 193

     Carol M. Rumack. (2010) 2010 ACR Presidential Address: Patient-Focused Radiology: Taking Charge of Radiation Dose. Journal of the American College of Radiology 7:11, 837-844
     

194. 194

     Christian Sohns, Besim Cetin Angic, Samuel Sossalla, Frank Konietschke, Silvia Obenauer. (2010) CAD in full-field digital mammography—influence of reader experience and application of CAD on interpretation of time. Clinical Imaging 34:6, 418-424
     

195. 195

     R. Gruber, C.C. Riedl, M. Reisegger, K. Pinker, E. Sturm, F. Semturs, T.H. Helbich. (2010) Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographieplattform. Der Radiologe 50:11, 999-1007
     

196. 196

     E. D. Pisano. (2010) Mode of Detection and Secular Time for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ. JNCI Monographs 2010:41, 142-144
     

197. 197

     Mari Yakabe, Shuji Sakai, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Yoshio Matsuo, Takeshi Kamitani, Taro Setoguchi, Mayumi Cho, Masafumi Masuda, Masayuki Sasaki. (2010) Effect of Dose Reduction on the Ability of Digital Mammography to Detect Simulated Microcalcifications. Journal of Digital Imaging 23:5, 520-526
     

198. 198

     Chantal Ongeval, Andre Steen, Gretel Putte, Federica Zanca, Hilde Bosmans, Guy Marchal, Erik Limbergen. (2010) Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?. European Radiology 20:10, 2307-2314
     

199. 199

     M Dirk Robinson, C A Toth, J Y Lo, S Farsiu. (2010) Efficient Fourier-Wavelet Super-Resolution. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 19:10, 2669-2681
     

200. 200

     Adriana M. J. Bluekens, Nico Karssemeijer, David Beijerinck, Jan J. M. Deurenberg, Ruben E. Engen, Mireille J. M. Broeders, Gerard J. Heeten. (2010) Consequences of digital mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: initial changes and long-term impact on referral rates. European Radiology 20:9, 2067-2073
     

201. 201

     Emil M. deGoma, Ronald P. Karlsberg, Debra R. Judelson, Matthew J. Budoff. (2010) The Underappreciated Impact of Heart Disease. Women's Health Issues 20:5, 299-303
     

202. 202

     Edward A. Sickles. (2010) The Use of Breast Imaging to Screen Women at High Risk for Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 859-878
     

203. 203

     Rachel F. Brem, Lauren R. Rechtman. (2010) Nuclear Medicine Imaging of the Breast: A Novel, Physiologic Approach to Breast Cancer Detection and Diagnosis. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 1055-1074
     

204. 204

     Karen K. Lindfors, John M. Boone, Mary S. Newell, Carl J. D'Orsi. (2010) Dedicated Breast Computed Tomography: The Optimal Cross-Sectional Imaging Solution?. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 1043-1054
     

205. 205

     Melchor Sentís. (2010) Imaging diagnosis of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 123:S1, 11-13
     

206. 206

     Stephen Feig. (2010) Cost-Effectiveness of Mammography, MRI, and Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Screening. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 879-891
     

207. 207

     Margarita L. Zuley. (2010) The Basics and Implementation of Digital Mammography. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48:5, 893-901
     

208. 208

     P. Taourel. (2010) Caractérisation d’un foyer de microcalcifications en mammographie numérique : respecter les fondamentaux. Journal de Radiologie 91:9, 837-838
     

209. 209

     M. Moraux-Wallyn, C. Chaveron, F. Bachelle, S. Taieb, L. Ceugnart. (2010) Comparaison entre le zoom numérique et l’agrandissement géométrique dans l’étude des foyers de microcalcifications en mammographie numérique. Journal de Radiologie 91:9, 879-883
     

210. 210

     S. L. Bailey, B. M. Sigal, S. K. Plevritis. (2010) A Simulation Model Investigating the Impact of Tumor Volume Doubling Time and Mammographic Tumor Detectability on Screening Outcomes in Women Aged 40-49 Years. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102:16, 1263-1271
     

211. 211

     Gail S. Lebovic, Alan Hollingsworth, Stephen A. Feig. (2010) Risk assessment, screening and prevention of breast cancer: A look at cost-effectiveness. The Breast 19:4, 260-267
     

212. 212

     Lorenzo L. Pesce, Charles E. Metz, Kevin S. Berbaum. (2010) On the Convexity of ROC Curves Estimated from Radiological Test Results. Academic Radiology 17:8, 960-968.e4
     

213. 213

     P Kok, AG Pitman, JN Cawson, S Gledhill, S Kremer, J Lawson, K Mehta, V Mercuri, D Shnier, R Taft, L Zentner. (2010) ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Diagnostic accuracy of mammography readers and their memory performance have no correlation with each other. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology 54:4, 315-324
     

214. 214

     Jon M. Greif. (2010) Mammographic screening for breast cancer: An invited review of the benefits and costs. The Breast 19:4, 268-272
     

215. 215

     Otto Zhou, Xiomara Calderon-Colon. Carbon Nanotube-Based Field Emission X-Ray Technology. In: Carbon Nanotube and Related Field Emitters. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2010:417-437.
     

216. 216

     Laurie Margolies. (2010) Mammographic Screening for Breast Cancer: 2010. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine 77:4, 398-404
     

217. 217

     Monica Morrow. (2010) Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Screening, Diagnosis, and Eligibility for Breast-conserving Surgery: Promises and Pitfalls. Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America 19:3, 475-492
     

218. 218

     Takayoshi Uematsu. (2010) Digital mammography in Japan. Breast Cancer 17:3, 158-158
     

219. 219

     Takayuki Yamada. (2010) Current status and issues of screening digital mammography in Japan. Breast Cancer 17:3, 163-168
     

220. 220

     Michael Phillips, Renee N Cataneo, Christobel Saunders, Peter Hope, Peter Schmitt, James Wai. (2010) Volatile biomarkers in the breath of women with breast cancer. Journal of Breath Research 4:2, 026003
     

221. 221

     Yanpeng Li, Ann Poulos, Donald McLean, Mary Rickard. (2010) A review of methods of clinical image quality evaluation in mammography. European Journal of Radiology 74:3, e122-e131
     

222. 222

     Shu-Ting Luo, Bor-Wen Cheng. (2010) Diagnosing Breast Masses in Digital Mammography Using Feature Selection and Ensemble Methods. Journal of Medical Systems
     

223. 223

     Morgan W. Nields. (2010) FDA & Digital MammographyWhy Has FDA Required Full Field Digital Mammography Systems to Be Regulated as Potentially Dangerous Devices for More Than 10 Years?. Academic Radiology 17:5, 652-657
     

224. 224

     David Gur, Andriy I. Bandos, Howard E. Rockette, Margarita L. Zuley, Christiane M. Hakim, Denise M. Chough, Marie A. Ganott, Jules H. Sumkin. (2010) Is an ROC-type Response Truly Always Better Than a Binary Response in Observer Performance Studies?. Academic Radiology 17:5, 639-645
     

225. 225

     C. Balu-Maestro, L. Bailly, C. Granon, M. Namer. (2010) Numérique en dépistage organisé : bilan à 1 an dans les Alpes-Maritimes. Journal de Radiologie 91:5, 549-553
     

226. 226

     Angela Ives, Christobel Saunders. (2010) Breast cancer associated with a concurrent or subsequent pregnancy. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:3, 357-369
     

227. 227

     Junji Shiraishi, Hiroyuki Abe, Katsuhiro Ichikawa, Robert A. Schmidt, Kunio Doi. (2010) Observer Study for Evaluating Potential Utility of a Super-High-Resolution LCD in the Detection of Clustered Microcalcifications on Digital Mammograms. Journal of Digital Imaging 23:2, 161-169
     

228. 228

     Marina E. Giurescu, Tilina Hu, Olufolajimi Obembe. (2010) Role of Imaging in Breast Cancer Detection. AAOHN Journal 58:4, 131-134
     

229. 229

     Anna Liza M. Antonio, Catherine M. Crespi. (2010) Predictors of interobserver agreement in breast imaging using the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 120:3, 539-546
     

230. 230

     Joseph A. Sparano, Etta D. Pisano, Julia R. White, Kelly K. Hunt, Eleftherios P. Mamounas, Edith A. Perez, Gabriel N. Hortobagyi, Julie R. Gralow, Robert L. Comis. (2010) Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the coalition of cancer cooperative groups scientific leadership council: imaging and local therapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 120:2, 273-284
     

231. 231

     T. Svahn, I. Andersson, D. Chakraborty, S. Svensson, D. Ikeda, D. Fornvik, S. Mattsson, A. Tingberg, S. Zackrisson. (2010) The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 139:1-3, 113-117
     

232. 232

     Tamara Miner Haygood, Jihong Wang, Deanna Lane, Eva Galvan, E. Neely Atkinson, Tanya Stephens, Gary J. Whitman. (2010) Why Does It Take Longer to Read Digital Than Film-Screen Screening Mammograms? A Partial Explanation. Journal of Digital Imaging 23:2, 170-180
     

233. 233

     R. Wilson, P. Skaane, C. De Wolf, F. Thibault, P. Taylor. (2010) E2. Current issues in breast screening. European Journal of Cancer Supplements 8:3, 4-6
     

234. 234

     Jason Madan, Andrew Rawdin, Matt Stevenson, Paul Tappenden. (2010) A Rapid-Response Economic Evaluation of the UK NHS Cancer Reform Strategy Breast Cancer Screening Program Extension via a Plausible Bounds Approach. Value in Health 13:2, 215-221
     

235. 235

     Kellie L. Mathis, Tanya L. Hoskin, Judy C. Boughey, Brian S. Crownhart, Kathy R. Brandt, Celine M. Vachon, Clive S. Grant, Amy C. Degnim. (2010) Palpable Presentation of Breast Cancer Persists in the Era of Screening Mammography. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 210:3, 314-318
     

236. 236

     S. VINITHA SREE, EDDIE Y.-K. NG, RAJENDRA ACHARYA U, WILLIAM TAN. (2010) BREAST IMAGING SYSTEMS: A REVIEW AND COMPARATIVE STUDY. Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology 10:01, 5-34
     

237. 237

     J. Anthony Seibert. (2010) Advances in Computed Radiography: Dual-Side Readout. Journal of the American College of Radiology 7:2, 154-157
     

238. 238

     Yi-Ta Wu, Chuan Zhou, Heang-Ping Chan, Chintana Paramagul, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Caroline Plowden Daly, Julie A. Douglas, Yiheng Zhang, Berkman Sahiner, Jiazheng Shi, Jun Wei. (2010) Dynamic multiple thresholding breast boundary detection algorithm for mammograms. Medical Physics 37:1, 391
     

239. 239

     S.A. Feig. (2010) Estimated Risk of Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer From Mammographic Screening for Young BRCA Mutation CarriersBerrington de Gonzalez A, Berg CD, Visvanathan K, et al (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD; Natl Cancer Inst, Rockville, MD; et al) J Natl Cancer Inst 101:205-209, 2009§. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 21:1, 40-42
     

240. 240

     Carol H. Lee, D. David Dershaw, Daniel Kopans, Phil Evans, Barbara Monsees, Debra Monticciolo, R. James Brenner, Lawrence Bassett, Wendie Berg, Stephen Feig, Edward Hendrick, Ellen Mendelson, Carl D'Orsi, Edward Sickles, Linda Warren Burhenne. (2010) Breast Cancer Screening With Imaging: Recommendations From the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the Use of Mammography, Breast MRI, Breast Ultrasound, and Other Technologies for the Detection of Clinically Occult Breast Cancer. Journal of the American College of Radiology 7:1, 18-27
     

241. 241

     P. Timberg, M. Båth, I. Andersson, S. Mattsson, A. Tingberg, M. Ruschin. (2010) In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Medical Physics 37:11, 5618
     

242. 242

     Hendrik J. Teertstra, Claudette E. Loo, Maurice A. A. J. Bosch, Harm Tinteren, Emiel J. T. Rutgers, Sara H. Muller, Kenneth G. A. Gilhuijs. (2010) Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. European Radiology 20:1, 16-24
     

243. 243

     Hans Junkermann. (2009) Mammadiagnostik zur Brustkrebsfrüherkennung. Onkopipeline 2:4, 146-152
     

244. 244

     A Bordoni, N M Probst-Hensch, L Mazzucchelli, A Spitale. (2009) Assessment of breast cancer opportunistic screening by clinical–pathological indicators: a population-based study. British Journal of Cancer 101:11, 1925-1931
     

245. 245

     L.J. Hamilton, A.J. Evans, E.J. Cornford, E.A. Rakha, I.O. Ellis, W.D. Foulkes. (2009) Will MRI screening deliver the expected survival advantage in BRCA 1 carriers?. Clinical Radiology 64:11, 1045-1047
     

246. 246

     M. Thill, C. Dittmer, B. Ruhland, K. Diedrich, D. Fischer. (2009) Früherkennung des Mammakarzinoms. Der Gynäkologe 42:11, 833-840
     

247. 247

     (2009) Surveillance après traitement de cancer du sein (hors mutation). Oncologie 11:11, 589-610
     

248. 248

     R. Schulz-Wendtland, M. Fuchsjäger, T. Wacker, K.-P. Hermann. (2009) Digital mammography: An update. European Journal of Radiology 72:2, 258-265
     

249. 249

     David Ansell, Paula Grabler, Steven Whitman, Carol Ferrans, Jacqueline Burgess-Bishop, Linda Rae Murray, Ruta Rao, Elizabeth Marcus. (2009) A community effort to reduce the black/white breast cancer mortality disparity in Chicago. Cancer Causes & Control 20:9, 1681-1688
     

250. 250

     Vladimir Egorov, Thomas Kearney, Stanley B. Pollak, Chand Rohatgi, Noune Sarvazyan, Suren Airapetian, Stephanie Browning, Armen Sarvazyan. (2009) Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions by mechanical imaging. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 118:1, 67-80
     

251. 251

     C D Arvanitis, R Speller. (2009) Quantitative contrast-enhanced mammography for contrast medium kinetics studies. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54:20, 6041-6064
     

252. 252

     William C. Wood. (2009) Should the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy be increasing as it is?. The Breast 18, S93-S95
     

253. 253

     Florian J.F. Engelken, Henning Meyer, Ralf Juran, Ulrich Bick, Eva Fallenberg, Felix Diekmann. (2009) Intra-individual Comparison of Average Glandular Dose of Two Digital Mammography Units using Different Anode/Filter Combinations. Academic Radiology 16:10, 1272-1280
     

254. 254

     Srila Samphao, Amanda J. Wheeler, Elizabeth Rafferty, James S. Michaelson, Michelle C. Specht, Michele A. Gadd, Kevin S. Hughes, Barbara L. Smith. (2009) Diagnosis of breast cancer in women age 40 and younger: delays in diagnosis result from underuse of genetic testing and breast imaging. The American Journal of Surgery 198:4, 538-543
     

255. 255

     Brigid K. Killelea, Alyssa Gillego, Laurie J. Kirstein, Juhi Asad, Marina Shpilko, Avni Shah, Sheldon Feldman, Susan K. Boolbol. (2009) George Peters Award: How does breast-specific gamma imaging affect the management of patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer?. The American Journal of Surgery 198:4, 470-474
     

256. 256

     Shuhong Wang, Tracy Merlin, Florian Kreisz, Paul Craft, Janet E. Hiller. (2009) Cost and cost-effectiveness of digital mammography compared with film-screen mammography in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 33:5, 430-436
     

257. 257

     Melvin J. Silverstein, Abram Recht, Michael D. Lagios, Ira J. Bleiweiss, Peter W. Blumencranz, Terri Gizienski, Steven E. Harms, Jay Harness, Roger J. Jackman, V. Suzanne Klimberg, Robert Kuske, Gary M. Levine, Michael N. Linver, Elizabeth A. Rafferty, Hope Rugo, Kathy Schilling, Debu Tripathy, Pat W. Whitworth, Shawna C. Willey. (2009) Image-Detected Breast Cancer: State-of-the-Art Diagnosis and Treatment. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 209:4, 504-520
     

258. 258

     J. M. Park. (2009) Understanding and Application of Different Breast Imaging Studies. Imaging Decisions MRI 13:3-4, 105-111
     

259. 259

     Jeffrey A. Tice, Karla Kerlikowske. (2009) Screening and Prevention of Breast Cancer in Primary Care. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 36:3, 533-558
     

260. 260

     Larissa Nekhlyudov, Clarence H. Braddock. (2009) An Approach to Enhance Communication about Screening Mammography in Primary Care. Journal of Women's Health 18:9, 1403-1412
     

261. 261

     Brijesh Verma, Peter McLeod, Alan Klevansky. (2009) A novel soft cluster neural network for the classification of suspicious areas in digital mammograms. Pattern Recognition 42:9, 1845-1852
     

262. 262

     William R. Hendee, Anthony B. Wolbarst. Biomedical Imaging Technologies. In: digital Encyclopedia of Applied Physics. WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, 2009.
     

263. 263

     S. Taylor-Phillips, M. G. Wallis, A. G. Gale. (2009) Should previous mammograms be digitised in the transition to digital mammography?. European Radiology 19:8, 1890-1896
     

264. 264

     Anders Lönneborg, Jørgen Aarøe, Vanessa Dumeaux, Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale. (2009) Found in transcription: gene expression and other novel blood biomarkers for the early detection of breast cancer. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 9:8, 1115-1123
     

265. 265

     Michael O’Connor, Deborah Rhodes, Carrie Hruska. (2009) Molecular breast imaging. Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 9:8, 1073-1080
     

266. 266

     Sanjay Thulkar, Smriti Hari. (2009) Present Role of Mammography/Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer Management. PET Clinics 4:3, 213-225
     

267. 267

     Hubert Thierens, Hilde Bosmans, Nico Buls, An De Hauwere, Klaus Bacher, Jurgen Jacobs, Peter Clerinx. (2009) Typetesting of physical characteristics of digital mammography systems for screening within the Flemish breast cancer screening programme. European Journal of Radiology 70:3, 539-548
     

268. 268

     T Kao, D Connor, F A Dilmanian, L Faulconer, T Liu, C Parham, E D Pisano, Z Zhong. (2009) Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54:10, 3247-3256
     

269. 269

     Takayoshi Uematsu. (2009) Detection of masses and calcifications by soft-copy reading: comparison of two postprocessing algorithms for full-field digital mammography. Japanese Journal of Radiology 27:4, 168-175
     

270. 270

     Stephanie M. W. Y. Ven, Sjoerd G. Elias, Andrea J. Wiethoff, Marjolein Voort, Tim Nielsen, Bernhard Brendel, Claas Bontus, Falk Uhlemann, Rami Nachabe, Rik Harbers, Michiel Beek, Leon Bakker, Martin B. Mark, Peter Luijten, Willem P. Th. M. Mali. (2009) Diffuse optical tomography of the breast: preliminary findings of a new prototype and comparison with magnetic resonance imaging. European Radiology 19:5, 1108-1113
     

271. 271

     L E M Duijm, M W J Louwman, J H Groenewoud, L V van de Poll-Franse, J Fracheboud, J W Coebergh. (2009) Inter-observer variability in mammography screening and effect of type and number of readers on screening outcome. British Journal of Cancer 100:6, 901-907
     

272. 272

     I A Elbakri, B J McIntosh, D W Rickey. (2009) Physical characterization and performance comparison of active- and passive-pixel CMOS detectors for mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 54:6, 1743-1755
     

273. 273

     Jinshan Tang, R.M. Rangayyan, Jun Xu, I. El Naqa, Yongyi Yang. (2009) Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer With Mammography: Recent Advances. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 13:2, 236-251
     

274. 274

     Adam F. Prasanphanich, Lauren Retzloff, Stephanie R. Lane, Prasant K. Nanda, Gary L. Sieckman, Tammy L. Rold, Lixin Ma, Said D. Figueroa, Samantha V. Sublett, Timothy J. Hoffman. (2009) In vitro and in vivo analysis of [64Cu-NO2A-8-Aoc-BBN(7–14)NH2]: a site-directed radiopharmaceutical for positron-emission tomography imaging of T-47D human breast cancer tumors. Nuclear Medicine and Biology 36:2, 171-181
     

275. 275

     Melissa C. Hulvat, Nora M. Hansen, Jacqueline S. Jeruss. (2009) Multidisciplinary Care for Patients with Breast Cancer. Surgical Clinics of North America 89:1, 133-176
     

276. 276

     C. Colin, V. Prince, P. Heid. (2009) Performance de la mammographie numérique versus analogique dans le dépistage du cancer du sein : éléments d’une analyse méthodologique critique des études et conséquences. Journal de Radiologie 90:2, 174-178
     

277. 277

     Z. Milosevic, V. Karapandzic-Plesinac, A. Jovicevic, V. Vukovic, J. Vucicevic, T. Pavlovic, N. Borojevic. (2009) Diagnosis of breast cancer in women age 40 and younger: Mammography and breast ultrasound. Acta chirurgica iugoslavica 56:4, 77-81
     

278. 278

     Stephen A. Feig. (2009) Advances in Breast Imaging: 1989-2008. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20:1, 29-34
     

279. 279

     Mitsutomi Ishiyama, Hiroko Tsunoda-Shimizu, Mari Kikuchi, Yukihisa Saida, Sonoe Hiramatsu. (2009) Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography. Breast Cancer 16:1, 58-61
     

280. 280

     A. Karellas, S. Vedantham. (2009) Image Quality of Digital Direct Flat-Panel Mammography Versus an Analog Screen-Film Technique Using a Low-Contrast PhantomKrug KB, Stützer H, Schröder R, et al (Univ of Cologne Med School, Germany; Univ of Cologne, Germany) AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:W80-W88, 2008§. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20:3, 271-273
     

281. 281

     S. R. Amendolia, M. G. Bisogni, P. Delogu, M. E. Fantacci, G. Paternoster, V. Rosso, A. Stefanini. (2009) Characterization of a mammographic system based on single photon counting pixel arrays coupled to GaAs x-ray detectors. Medical Physics 36:4, 1330
     

282. 282

     Federica Zanca, Jurgen Jacobs, Chantal Van Ongeval, Filip Claus, Valerie Celis, Catherine Geniets, Veerle Provost, Herman Pauwels, Guy Marchal, Hilde Bosmans. (2009) Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography. Medical Physics 36:3, 765
     

283. 283

     David W. Lee, Paul E. Stang, George A. Goldberg, Merle Haberman. (2009) Resource Use and Cost of Diagnostic Workup of Women with Suspected Breast Cancer. The Breast Journal 15:1, 85-92
     

284. 284

     Tadaoki Morimoto, Taeko Nagao, Kenji Okazaki, Misako Kira, Yasushi Nakagawa, Akira Tangoku. (2009) Current status of breast cancer screening in the world. Breast Cancer 16:1, 2-9
     

285. 285

     Michael K. O’Connor, Georgia Tourassi, Colin G. Orton. (2009) Molecular breast imaging will soon replace x-ray mammography as the imaging modality of choice for women at high risk with dense breasts. Medical Physics 36:5, 1463
     

286. 286

     Richard J. Santen. . 2009:659.
     

287. 287

     A Mohd. Khuzi, R Besar, WMD Wan Zaki, NN Ahmad. (2009) Identification of masses in digital mammogram using gray level co-occurrence matrices. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 5:3,
     

288. 288

     Sachiko Yamada, Takashi Ueguchi, Naoki Mihara, Hiroaki Matsuzawa, Yoshiharu Sukenobu, Mitsuru Komizu. (2009) Observer Performance of PACS-oriented Digitized Mammography in the Detection of Fibrils, Microcalcifications, and Masses: a Phantom Study. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 65:5, 620-625
     

289. 289

     Kwon Su Chon, Jeong Gon Park, Hyun Hwa Son, Sung Hoon Kang, Seong Hoon Park, Hye-won Kim, Hun Soo Kim, Kwon-Ha Yoon. (2009) Usefulness of a Small-Field Digital Mammographic Imaging System Using Parabolic Polycapillary Optics as a Diagnostic Imaging Tool: a Preliminary Study. Korean Journal of Radiology 10:6, 604
     

290. 290

     Yoshiharu Higashida et al.. (2009) Investigation of Imaging Properties of Digital Imaging Systems. Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 65:7, 992-1001
     

291. 291

     Ali Fatemi-Ardekani, Colm Boylan, Michael D. Noseworthy. (2009) Identification of breast calcification using magnetic resonance imaging. Medical Physics 36:12, 5429
     

292. 292

     Adam B. Nover, Shami Jagtap, Waqas Anjum, Hakki Yegingil, Wan Y. Shih, Wei-Heng Shih, Ari D. Brooks. (2009) Modern Breast Cancer Detection: A Technological Review. International Journal of Biomedical Imaging 2009, 1-14
     

293. 293

     Xin Qian, Ramya Rajaram, Xiomara Calderon-Colon, Guang Yang, Tuyen Phan, David S. Lalush, Jianping Lu, Otto Zhou. (2009) Design and characterization of a spatially distributed multibeam field emission x-ray source for stationary digital breast tomosynthesis. Medical Physics 36:10, 4389
     

294. 294

     J. S. Sandhu, R. A. Schmidt, P. J. La Rivière. (2009) Full-field acoustomammography using an acousto-optic sensor. Medical Physics 36:6, 2324
     

295. 295

     C. D. Arvanitis, S. E. Bohndiek, J. Blakesley, A. Olivo, R. D. Speller. (2009) Signal and noise transfer properties of CMOS based active pixel flat panel imager coupled to structured CsI:Tl. Medical Physics 36:1, 116
     

296. 296

     E.A. Sickles. (2009) Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital versus Film Mammography: Exploratory Analysis of Selected Population Subgroups in DMISTPisano ED, for the DMIST Investigators Group (The UNC-Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Ctr, and the Biomedical Res Imaging Ctr of the Univ of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill; et al) Radiology 246:376-383, 2008§. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 20:4, 396-399
     

297. 297

     Koichi Chida, Yuka Komatsu, Masahiro Sai, Asuka Nakagami, Takayuki Yamada, Takuya Yamashita, Issei Mori, Tadashi Ishibashi, Shin Maruoka, Masayuki Zuguchi. (2009) Reduced compression mammography to reduce breast pain. Clinical Imaging 33:1, 7-10
     

298. 298

     Yunfeng Cui, Yongqiang Tan, Binsheng Zhao, Laura Liberman, Rakesh Parbhu, Jennifer Kaplan, Maria Theodoulou, Clifford Hudis, Lawrence H. Schwartz. (2009) Malignant lesion segmentation in contrast-enhanced breast MR images based on the marker-controlled watershed. Medical Physics 36:10, 4359
     

299. 299

     Michael S. Sabel. Principles of Breast Cancer Screening. In: Essentials of Breast Surgery. Elsevier, 2009:19-40.
     

300. 300

     Richard J. Santen. Breast Cancer. In: Yen & Jaffe's Reproductive Endocrinology. Elsevier, 2009:659-686.
     

301. 301

     Ge Wang, Wenxiang Cong, Haiou Shen, Yu Zou. (2009) Varying Collimation for Dark-Field Extraction. International Journal of Biomedical Imaging 2009, 1-7
     

302. 302

     Michiel Kallenberg, Nico Karssemeijer. (2008) Computer-aided detection of masses in full-field digital mammography using screen-film mammograms for training. Physics in Medicine and Biology 53:23, 6879-6891
     

303. 303

     Alexander Poellinger, Jan C. Martin, Steven L. Ponder, Torsten Freund, Bernd Hamm, Ulrich Bick, Felix Diekmann. (2008) Near-infrared Laser Computed Tomography of the Breast. Academic Radiology 15:12, 1545-1553
     

304. 304

     Ingvar Andersson, Debra M. Ikeda, Sophia Zackrisson, Mark Ruschin, Tony Svahn, Pontus Timberg, Anders Tingberg. (2008) Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. European Radiology 18:12, 2817-2825
     

305. 305

     Rosalyn Katy F Hogben. (2008) Screening for breast cancer in England: a review. Current Opinion in Obstetrics and Gynecology 20:6, 545-549
     

306. 306

     David Gur. (2008) Retrospective Analyses of Pivotal Prospective Studies With Population Segmentation—Statistically Based Inferences and Clinical Relevance. Academic Radiology 15:11, 1458-1462
     

307. 307

     Lucien E. M. Duijm, Johanna H. Groenewoud, Jacques Fracheboud, Menno L. Plaisier, Rudi M. H. Roumen, B. Martin Ineveld, Mike Beek, Harry J. Koning. (2008) Utilization and cost of diagnostic imaging and biopsies following positive screening mammography in the southern breast cancer screening region of the Netherlands, 2000–2005. European Radiology 18:11, 2390-2397
     

308. 308

     Takayuki Yamada, Akihiko Suzuki, Nachiko Uchiyama, Noriaki Ohuchi, Shoki Takahashi. (2008) Diagnostic performance of detecting breast cancer on computed radiographic (CR) mammograms: comparison of hard copy film, 3-megapixel liquid-crystal-display (LCD) monitor and 5-megapixel LCD monitor. European Radiology 18:11, 2363-2369
     

309. 309

     Hui Li, Maryellen L. Giger, Yading Yuan, Weijie Chen, Karla Horsch, Li Lan, Andrew R. Jamieson, Charlene A. Sennett, Sanaz A. Jansen. (2008) Evaluation of Computer-aided Diagnosis on a Large Clinical Full-field Digital Mammographic Dataset. Academic Radiology 15:11, 1437-1445
     

310. 310

     Akihiko Suzuki, Shinichi Kuriyama, Masaaki Kawai, Masakazu Amari, Motohiro Takeda, Takanori Ishida, Koji Ohnuki, Yoshikazu Nishino, Ichiro Tsuji, Daisuke Shibuya, Noriaki Ohuchi. (2008) Age-specific interval breast cancers in Japan: estimation of the proper sensitivity of screening using a population-based cancer registry. Cancer Science 99:11, 2264-2267
     

311. 311

     George H. Sakorafas, David R. Farley, George Peros. (2008) Recent advances and current controversies in the management of DCIS of the breast. Cancer Treatment Reviews 34:6, 483-497
     

312. 312

     Bruce J. Hillman, Constantine Gatsonis. (2008) The American College of Radiology Imaging Network—Clinical Trials of Diagnostic Imaging and Image-Guided Treatment. Seminars in Oncology 35:5, 460-469
     

313. 313

     Gerd Schueller, Christopher C. Riedl, Reinhold Mallek, Klemens Eibenberger, Herbert Langenberger, Elisabeth Kaindl, Christiane Kulinna-Cosentini, Margaretha Rudas, Thomas H. Helbich. (2008) Image Quality, lesion detection, and diagnostic efficacy in digital mammography: Full-field digital mammography versus computed radiography-based mammography using digital storage phosphor plates. European Journal of Radiology 67:3, 487-496
     

314. 314

     Neill Patani, Bruno Cutuli, Kefah Mokbel. (2008) Current management of DCIS: a review. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 111:1, 1-10
     

315. 315

     V. Egorov, A.P. Sarvazyan. (2008) Mechanical Imaging of the Breast. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 27:9, 1275-1287
     

316. 316

     C CHEN, W TZENG, C TSAI, C MAK, C CHEN, M CHOU. (2008) Adjusting Mammography—Audit Recommendations in a Lower-Incidence Taiwanese Population. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:9, 978-985
     

317. 317

     M.H. Dilhuydy. (2008) Seins denses et dépistage organisé : place de l’échographie. Journal de Radiologie 89:9, 1180-1186
     

318. 318

     P. Chérel, C. Hagay, B. Benaim, C. De Maulmont, S. Engerand, A. Langer, V. Talma. (2008) Exploration des seins denses en mammographie : techniques et limites. Journal de Radiologie 89:9, 1156-1168
     

319. 319

     A. Tardivon. (2008) Comment surveiller des seins denses en pratique ?. Journal de Radiologie 89:9, 1204-1208
     

320. 320

     I. Leconte, L. Fellah. (2008) Échographie et seins denses : où en est-on ?. Journal de Radiologie 89:9, 1169-1179
     

321. 321

     S. Hofvind, P. M. Vacek, J. Skelly, D. L. Weaver, B. M. Geller. (2008) Comparing Screening Mammography for Early Breast Cancer Detection in Vermont and Norway. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 100:15, 1082-1091
     

322. 322

     Leonard Fass. (2008) Imaging and cancer: A review. Molecular Oncology 2:2, 115-152
     

323. 323

     Vineeta Singh, Christobel Saunders, Liz Wylie, Anita Bourke. (2008) New diagnostic techniques for breast cancer detection. Future Oncology 4:4, 501-513
     

324. 324

     S.-Y. Shiu, C. Gatsonis. (2008) The predictive receiver operating characteristic curve for the joint assessment of the positive and negative predictive values. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366:1874, 2313-2333
     

325. 325

     Akihiko Shiraishi. (2008) Current state of digital mammography. Breast Cancer 15:3, 194-199
     

326. 326

     M. Funke, C. Villena. (2008) Bildgebende Diagnostik des Mammakarzinoms. Der Radiologe 48:6, 601-614
     

327. 327

     Deborah Axelrod, Julia Smith, Davida Kornreich, Eve Grinstead, Baljit Singh, Joan Cangiarella, Amber A. Guth. (2008) Breast Cancer in Young Women. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 206:6, 1193-1203
     

328. 328

     Per Skaane, Felix Diekmann, Corinne Balleyguier, Susanne Diekmann, Jean-Charles Piguet, Kari Young, Michael Abdelnoor, Loren Niklason. (2008) Observer variability in screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading. European Radiology 18:6, 1134-1143
     

329. 329

     Philippe Vennin, Sophie Taïeb, Luc Ceugnart. (2008) Le dépistage systématique des cancers du sein par mammographie entre 40 et 50 ans : une décision politique impossible, un choix personnel difficile. Imagerie de la Femme 18:2, 101-105
     

330. 330

     Vijay M. Rao, David C. Levin, Laurence Parker, Andrea J. Frangos. (2008) Recent Trends in Mammography Utilization in the Medicare Population: Is There a Cause for Concern?. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:5, 652-656
     

331. 331

     N. M. Perry, P. C. Allgood, S. W. Duffy, K. Mokbel. (2008) Exposure to traffic emissions throughout life and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Causes & Control 19:4, 435-435
     

332. 332

     S.H. Heywang-Köbrunner, D. Möhrling, A. Hacker. (2008) Bildgebende und interventionelle Mammadiagnostik. Der Onkologe 14:5, 478-489
     

333. 333

     B. Sigal-Zafrani, K. Muller, C. El Khoury, P.C. Varoutas, C. Buron, A. Vincent-Salomon, S. Alran, A. Livartowski, S. Neuenschwander, R.J. Salmon. (2008) Vacuum-assisted large-core needle biopsy (VLNB) improves the management of patients with breast microcalcifications – Analysis of 1009 cases. European Journal of Surgical Oncology (EJSO) 34:4, 377-381
     

334. 334

     U. Bick, F. Diekmann, E.M. Fallenberg. (2008) Workflow in der digitalen Screeningmammographie. Der Radiologe 48:4, 335-344
     

335. 335

     R. Schulz-Wendtland, K.-P. Hermann, T. Wacker, W. Bautz. (2008) Aktueller Stand und weitere Perspektiven der digitalen Mammographie. Der Radiologe 48:4, 324-334
     

336. 336

     T HAYGOOD, G WHITMAN, E ATKINSON, R NIKOLOVA, S SANDOVAL, P DEMPSEY. (2008) Results of a Survey on Digital Screening Mammography: Prevalence, Efficiency, and Use of Ancillary Diagnostic Aids. Journal of the American College of Radiology 5:4, 585-592
     

337. 337

     Alexis V. Nees. (2008) Digital Mammography. Academic Radiology 15:4, 401-407
     

338. 338

     Anthony B. Miller. (2008) Implementation of Colon Cancer Screening: Techniques, Costs, and Barriers. Gastroenterology Clinics of North America 37:1, 83-95
     

339. 339

     F. Shannoun, J. M. Schanck, A. Scharpantgen, M. C. Wagnon, M. Ben Daoud, C. Back. (2008) Organisational aspects of mammography screening in digital settings: first experiences of Luxembourg. Radiation Protection Dosimetry 129:1-3, 195-198
     

340. 340

     Gary L. Corino, Peter W. French. (2008) Diagnosis of breast cancer by X-ray diffraction of hair. International Journal of Cancer 122:4, 847-856
     

341. 341

     J BAKER. (2008) 4–13 Effect of Computer-Aided Detection on Independent Double Reading of Paired Screen-Film and Full-Field Digital Screening Mammograms. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:4, 357-357
     

342. 342

     Y Faridah. (2008) Digital versus screen film mammography: a clinical comparison. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 4:4,
     

343. 343

     Elizabeth A. Krupinski, Yulei Jiang. (2008) Anniversary Paper: Evaluation of medical imaging systems. Medical Physics 35:2, 645
     

344. 344

     Detection of Breast Cancer: Screening of Asymptomatic Patients. In: Breast Cancer Imaging. Elsevier, 2008:1-37.
     

345. 345

     R.L. Birdwell. (2008) Does computer-aided detection (CAD) contribute to the performance of digital mammography in a self-referred population?. Yearbook of Diagnostic Radiology 2008, 50-51
     

346. 346

     Jeffrey A. Tice, Mitchell D. Feldman. (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared with screen-film mammography in the detection of breast cancer: rays of light through DMIST or more fog?. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 107:2, 157-165
     

347. 347

     Richard L. Wahl. Imaging. In: Abeloff's Clinical Oncology. Elsevier, 2008:283-308.
     

348. 348

     M LINVER. (2008) 4–19 Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:4, 364-365
     

349. 349

     Martin D. Abeloff, Antonio C. Wolff, Barbara L. Weber, Tal Z. Zaks, Vergilio Sacchini, Beryl McCormick. Cancer of the Breast. In: Abeloff's Clinical Oncology. Elsevier, 2008:1875-1943.
     

350. 350

     Einar Vigeland, Herman Klaasen, Tor Audun Klingen, Solveig Hofvind, Per Skaane. (2008) Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study. European Radiology 18:1, 183-191
     

351. 351

     Andrew Karellas, Srinivasan Vedantham. (2008) Breast cancer imaging: A perspective for the next decade. Medical Physics 35:11, 4878
     

352. 352

     Jonathan J. James, A. Robin, M. Wilson, Andrew J. Evans. The Breast. In: Grainger & Allison's Diagnostic Radiology. Elsevier, 2008:1173-1200.
     

353. 353

     S. Diekmann, F. Diekmann. (2008) Mammographiescreening in Deutschland. Der Radiologe 48:1, 17-25
     

354. 354

     Bin Zheng, Margarita L. Zuley, Jules H. Sumkin, Victor J. Catullo, Gordon S. Abrams, Grace Y. Rathfon, Denise M. Chough, Michelle Z. Gruss, David Gur. (2008) Detection of breast abnormalities using a prototype resonance electrical impedance spectroscopy system: A preliminary study. Medical Physics 35:7, 3041
     

355. 355

     Marilyn T. Zivian, Raziel Gershater. The Accuracy of Diagnostic Radiology. In: Cancer Imaging. Elsevier, 2008:109-118.
     

356. 356

     Arne Fischmann. Microcalcification in Breast Lesions. In: Cancer Imaging. Elsevier, 2008:383-392.
     

357. 357

     John M. Lewin. Digital Mammography. In: Cancer Imaging. Elsevier, 2008:455-458.
     

358. 358

     Arne Fischmann. Full-field Digital Mammography versus Film-screen Mammography. In: Cancer Imaging. Elsevier, 2008:349-357.
     

359. 359

     Terry M. Button. Detection of Breast Cancer. In: Cancer Imaging. Elsevier, 2008:571-580.
     

360. 360

     A history of breast diagnosis. In: Interventional Ultrasound of the Breast. CRC Press, 2007:1-9.
     

361. 361

     Neal Handel. (2007) The Effect of Silicone Implants on the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 120:Supplement 1, 81S-93S
     

362. 362

     Boel Heddson, Katarina Rönnow, Magnus Olsson, David Miller. (2007) Digital versus screen-film mammography: A retrospective comparison in a population-based screening program. European Journal of Radiology 64:3, 419-425
     

363. 363

     Felix Diekmann, Ulrich Bick. (2007) Tomosynthesis and contrast-enhanced digital mammography: recent advances in digital mammography. European Radiology 17:12, 3086-3092
     

364. 364

     Renie Mullaney, Darcy Burbage, Alan Evantash, Emily Penman, Jacqueline Napoletano, Patrick A. Grusenmeyer. (2007) Making the transition to digital mammography. Community Oncology 4:11, 678-680
     

365. 365

     C DORSI, M NEWELL. (2007) Digital Mammography: Clinical Implementation and Clinical Trials. Seminars in Roentgenology 42:4, 236-242
     

366. 366

     J LEUNG. (2007) Letter from the Guest Editor. Seminars in Roentgenology 42:4, 207-207
     

367. 367

     J LEWIN, L NIKLASON. (2007) Advanced Applications of Digital Mammography: Tomosynthesis and Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. Seminars in Roentgenology 42:4, 243-252
     

368. 368

     L BASSETT. (2007) 3–15 Comparison of Calcification Specificity in Digital Mammography Using Soft-Copy Display Versus Screen-Film Mammography. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:3, 255-255
     

369. 369

     Evelyn Wenkel, Christian Geppert, Ruediger Schulz-Wendtland, Michael Uder, Berthold Kiefer, Werner Bautz, Rolf Janka. (2007) Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Breast MRI. Academic Radiology 14:9, 1077-1083
     

370. 370

     Etta D. Pisano, Margarita Zuley, Janet K. Baum, Helga S. Marques. (2007) Issues to Consider in Converting to Digital Mammography. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:5, 813-830
     

371. 371

     Wendie A. Berg. (2007) Beyond Standard Mammographic Screening: Mammography at Age Extremes, Ultrasound, and MR Imaging. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:5, 895-906
     

372. 372

     Nicole Urban, Gary M. Longton, Andrea D. Crowe, Mariann J. Drucker, Constance D. Lehman, Susan Peacock, Kimberly A. Lowe, Steve B. Zeliadt, Marcia A. Gaul. (2007) Computer-Assisted Mammography Feedback Program (CAMFP). Academic Radiology 14:9, 1036-1042
     

373. 373

     E RAFFERTY. (2007) Digital Mammography: Novel Applications. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:5, 831-843
     

374. 374

     J. C. P. Heggie. (2007) Technical developments in radiology in Australasia dating from 1977. Australasian Physics & Engineering Sciences in Medicine 30:3, 160-177
     

375. 375

     Stephen J. Glick. (2007) Breast CT. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 9:1, 501-526
     

376. 376

     Sandhya Pruthi, Kathleen R. Brandt, Amy C. Degnim, Matthew P. Goetz, Edith A. Perez, Carol A. Reynolds, Paula J. Schomberg, Grace K. Dy, James N. Ingle. (2007) A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Management of Breast Cancer, Part 1: Prevention and Diagnosis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 82:8, 999-1012
     

377. 377

     Carla Boetes, Ritse M Mann. (2007) Ductal carcinoma in situ and breast MRI. The Lancet 370:9586, 459-460
     

378. 378

     Andrew Robinson, Caroline Speers, Ivo Olivotto, Stephen Chia. (2007) Method of Detection of New Contralateral Primary Breast Cancer in Younger Versus Older Women. Clinical Breast Cancer 7:9, 705-709
     

379. 379

     William Hobbins, William Amalu, Jonathan Head, Robert Elliot. Infrared Imaging of the Breast. In: Medical Infrared Imaging. CRC Press, 2007:9-1-9-22.
     

380. 380

     Robson , Mark , Offit , Kenneth , . (2007) Management of an Inherited Predisposition to Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 357:2, 154-162
     Full Text

381. 381

     Ulrich Bick, Felix Diekmann. (2007) Digital mammography: what do we and what don’t we know?. European Radiology 17:8, 1931-1942
     

382. 382

     (2007) Computer-Aided Screening Mammography. New England Journal of Medicine 357:1, 83-85
     Free Full Text

383. 383

     J WEI, L HADJIISKI, B SAHINER, H CHAN, J GE, M ROUBIDOUX, M HELVIE, C ZHOU, Y WU, C PARAMAGUL. (2007) Computer-Aided Detection Systems for Breast Masses: Comparison of Performances on Full-Field Digital Mammograms and Digitized Screen-Film Mammograms1. Academic Radiology 14:6, 659-669
     

384. 384

     G. M. SHARANGPANI, A. S. JOSHI, K. PORTER, A. S. DESHPANDE, S. KEYHANI, G. A. NAIK, A. S. GHOLAP, S. H. BARSKY. (2007) Semi-automated imaging system to quantitate estrogen and progesterone receptor immunoreactivity in human breast cancer. Journal of Microscopy 226:3, 244-255
     

385. 385

     D GUR. (2007) Objectively Measuring and Comparing Performance Levels of Diagnostic Imaging Systems and Practices. Academic Radiology 14:6, 641-642
     

386. 386

     D GLUECK, M LAMB, J LEWIN, E PISANO. (2007) Two-Modality Mammography May Confer an Advantage Over Either Full-Field Digital Mammography or Screen-Film Mammography1. Academic Radiology 14:6, 670-676
     

387. 387

     R WAGNER, C METZ, G CAMPBELL. (2007) Assessment of Medical Imaging Systems and Computer Aids: A Tutorial Review. Academic Radiology 14:6, 723-748
     

388. 388

     Richard P. A. Norman, D. Gareth Evans, Douglas F. Easton, Kenneth C. Young. (2007) The cost-utility of magnetic resonance imaging for breast cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers aged 30–49. The European Journal of Health Economics 8:2, 137-144
     

389. 389

     Aparna S. Joshi, Girish M. Sharangpani, Kyle Porter, Sedigheh Keyhani, Carl Morrison, Amitabha S. Basu, Gauri A. Gholap, Abhi S. Gholap, Sanford H. Barsky. (2007) Semi-automated imaging system to quantitate Her-2/neu membrane receptor immunoreactivity in human breast cancer. Cytometry Part A 71A:5, 273-285
     

390. 390

     Felix Diekmann, Alexander Sommer, Ruediger Lawaczeck, Susanne Diekmann, Hubertus Pietsch, Ulrich Speck, Bernd Hamm, Ulrich Bick. (2007) Contrast-to-Noise Ratios of Different Elements in Digital Mammography. Investigative Radiology 42:5, 319-325
     

391. 391

     C CARREIRAGOMEZ, J MARTINEZCANTARERO, D GOMEZSANTOS, C POLANCOSANCHEZ, P NARANJOGARCIA, J DELLLANOSENARIS. (2007) Revisión de la evidencia científica sobre la aplicación clínica de la mamografía digital. Radiología 49:3, 145-156
     

392. 392

     E SAMEI, A POOLLA, M ULISSEY, J LEWIN. (2007) Digital Mammography: Comparative Performance of Color LCD and Monochrome CRT Displays1. Academic Radiology 14:5, 539-546
     

393. 393

     I A Elbakri, M M Tesic, Quanren Xiong. (2007) Physical characterization of a high-resolution CCD detector for mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52:8, 2171-2183
     

394. 394

     Takeshi Kamitani, Hidetake Yabuuchi, Hiroyasu Soeda, Yoshio Matsuo, Takashi Okafuji, Shuji Sakai, Akio Furuya, Masamitsu Hatakenaka, Nobuhide Ishii, Hiroshi Honda. (2007) Detection of masses and microcalcifications of breast cancer on digital mammograms: comparison among hard-copy film, 3-megapixel liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors and 5-megapixel LCD monitors: an observer performance study. European Radiology 17:5, 1365-1371
     

395. 395

     Hall , Ferris M. , . (2007) Breast Imaging and Computer-Aided Detection. New England Journal of Medicine 356:14, 1464-1466
     Full Text

396. 396

     Peter R. Snoeren, Nico Karssemeijer. (2007) Gray-scale and geometric registration of full-field digital and film-screen mammograms. Medical Image Analysis 11:2, 146-156
     

397. 397

     J PARIKH. (2007) 1–21 Digital and Screen-Film Mammography: Comparison of Image Acquisition and Interpretation Times. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 18:1, 49-49
     

398. 398

     Lehman , Constance D. , Gatsonis , Constantine , Kuhl , Christiane K. , Hendrick , R. Edward , Pisano , Etta D. , Hanna , Lucy , Peacock , Sue , Smazal , Stanley F. , Maki , Daniel D. , Julian , Thomas B. , DePeri , Elizabeth R. , Bluemke , David A. , Schnall , Mitchell D. , . (2007) MRI Evaluation of the Contralateral Breast in Women with Recently Diagnosed Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 356:13, 1295-1303
     Free Full Text

399. 399

     Smith , Robert A. , . (2007) The Evolving Role of MRI in the Detection and Evaluation of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 356:13, 1362-1364
     Full Text

400. 400

     G Gennaro, F Ferro, G Contento, F Fornasin, C di Maggio. (2007) Automated analysis of phantom images for the evaluation of long-term reproducibility in digital mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52:5, 1387-1407
     

401. 401

     M ZULEY. (2007) How to Transition to Digital Mammography. Journal of the American College of Radiology 4:3, 178-183
     

402. 402

     Joseph N. Gitlin, Anand K. Narayan, Chad A. Mitchell, Ali M. Akmal, David J. Eisner, Lindsy M. Peterson, Daisy Nie, Tyler R. McClintock. (2007) A Comparative Study of Conventional Mammography Film Interpretations with Soft Copy Readings of the Same Examinations. Journal of Digital Imaging 20:1, 42-52
     

403. 403

     R RANA, Y JIANG, R SCHMIDT, R NISHIKAWA, B LIU. (2007) Independent Evaluation of Computer Classification of Malignant and Benign Calcifications in Full-Field Digital Mammograms1. Academic Radiology 14:3, 363-370
     

404. 404

     Jun Ge, Lubomir M Hadjiiski, Berkman Sahiner, Jun Wei, Mark A Helvie, Chuan Zhou, Heang-Ping Chan. (2007) Computer-aided detection system for clustered microcalcifications: comparison of performance on full-field digital mammograms and digitized screen-film mammograms. Physics in Medicine and Biology 52:4, 981-1000
     

405. 405

     Chantal Van Ongeval, Hilde Bosmans, André Van Steen. (2007) Current status of digital mammography for screening and diagnosis of breast cancer. Current Opinion in Internal Medicine 6:1, 77-84
     

406. 406

     WE Hadden. (2007) Recommendations for the surveillance of young women at increased risk for breast cancer. Australasian Radiology 51:1, 1-11
     

407. 407

     Boyd , Norman F. , Guo , Helen , Martin , Lisa J. , Sun , Limei , Stone , Jennifer , Fishell , Eve , Jong , Roberta A. , Hislop , Greg , Chiarelli , Anna , Minkin , Salomon , Yaffe , Martin J. , . (2007) Mammographic Density and the Risk and Detection of Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 356:3, 227-236
     Free Full Text

408. 408

     Kerlikowske , Karla , . (2007) The Mammogram That Cried Wolfe. New England Journal of Medicine 356:3, 297-300
     Full Text

409. 409

     DC Spelic, RV Kaczmarek, M Hilohi, S Belella. (2007) United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities. Biomedical Imaging and Intervention Journal 3:2,
     

410. 410

     P. Monnin, D. Gutierrez, S. Bulling, D. Guntern, F. R. Verdun. (2007) A comparison of the performance of digital mammography systems. Medical Physics 34:3, 906
     

411. 411

     Lia Bartella, Clare S. Smith, D. David Dershaw, Laura Liberman. (2007) Imaging Breast Cancer. Radiologic Clinics of North America 45:1, 45-67
     

412. 412

     Hiroshi Fujita. (2007) Short Survey on Current Status of Computer-aided Diagnosis (CAD). Japanese Journal of Radiological Technology 63:12, 1389-1395
     

413. 413

     Mark Ruschin, Pontus Timberg, Magnus Båth, Bengt Hemdal, Tony Svahn, Rob S. Saunders, Ehsan Samei, Ingvar Andersson, Sören Mattsson, Dev P. Chakraborty, Anders Tingberg. (2007) Dose dependence of mass and microcalcification detection in digital mammography: Free response human observer studies. Medical Physics 34:2, 400
     

414. 414

     Benjamin Djulbegovic, Gary H Lyman. (2006) Screening mammography at 40–49 years: regret or no regret?. The Lancet 368:9552, 2035-2037
     

415. 415

     Anke Thomas, Sherko Kümmel, Florian Fritzsche, Mathias Warm, Bernd Ebert, Bernd Hamm, Thomas Fischer. (2006) Real-Time Sonoelastography Performed in Addition to B-Mode Ultrasound and Mammography: Improved Differentiation of Breast Lesions?. Academic Radiology 13:12, 1496-1504
     

416. 416

     Nicola Roche. (2006) Follow-up after treatment for breast cancer in young women. The Breast 15, S71-S75
     

417. 417

     R SAUNDERS, E SAMEI, J BAKER, D DELONG, M SOO, R WALSH, E PISANO, C KUZMIAK, D PAVIC. (2006) Comparison of LCD and CRT Displays Based on Efficacy for Digital Mammography1. Academic Radiology 13:11, 1317-1326
     

418. 418

     Gisella Gennaro, Cosimo Maggio. (2006) Dose comparison between screen/film and full-field digital mammography. European Radiology 16:11, 2559-2566
     

419. 419

     C KAUFMAN, L JACOBSON, B BACHMAN, L KAUFMAN. (2006) Digital documentation of the physical examination: moving the clinical breast exam to the electronic medical record. The American Journal of Surgery 192:4, 444-449
     

420. 420

     B SEO, E PISANO, C KUZMIAK, M KOOMEN, D PAVIC, R MCLELLAND, Y LEE, E COLE, D MATTINGLY, J LEE. (2006) The Positive Predictive Value for Diagnosis of Breast CancerFull-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in the Diagnostic Mammographic Population. Academic Radiology 13:10, 1229-1235
     

421. 421

     M. L. Bondy, L. A. Newman. (2006) Assessing Breast Cancer Risk: Evolution of the Gail Model. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98:17, 1172-1173
     

422. 422

     Kefah Mokbel, Bruno Cutuli. (2006) Heterogeneity of ductal carcinoma in situ and its effects on management. The Lancet Oncology 7:9, 756-765
     

423. 423

     Olivia Pagani, Aron Goldhirsch. (2006) Breast cancer in young women: climbing for progress in care and knowledge. Women's Health 2:5, 717-732
     

424. 424

     Eliot Siegel, Elizabeth Krupinski, Ehsan Samei, Michael Flynn, Katherine Andriole, Bradley Erickson, Jerry Thomas, Aldo Badano, J. Anthony Seibert, Etta D. Pisano. (2006) Digital Mammography Image Quality: Image Display. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 615-627
     

425. 425

     Etta D. Pisano. (2006) Digital Mammography: What Next?. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 583-585
     

426. 426

     Johan G. Blickman, Hanna Pohjonen. (2006) New Developments in the EU With Regard to Digital Image Management. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 635-638
     

427. 427

     Barbara M. Rothenberg, Kathleen M. Ziegler, Naomi Aronson. (2006) Technology Evaluation Center Assessment Synopsis: Full-Field Digital Mammography. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 586-588
     

428. 428

     Mark B. Williams, Martin J. Yaffe, Andrew D.A. Maidment, Melissa C. Martin, J. Anthony Seibert, Etta D. Pisano. (2006) Image Quality in Digital Mammography: Image Acquisition. Journal of the American College of Radiology 3:8, 589-608
     

429. 429

     Michael J. Collins, Jeffrey Hoffmeister, Steven W. Worrell. (2006) Computer-Aided Detection and Diagnosis of Breast Cancer. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI 27:4, 351-355
     

430. 430

     Kunio Doi. (2006) Diagnostic imaging over the last 50 years: research and development in medical imaging science and technology. Physics in Medicine and Biology 51:13, R5-R27
     

431. 431

     Robert Saunders, Ehsan Samei, Jay Baker, David Delong. (2006) Simulation of Mammographic Lesions. Academic Radiology 13:7, 860-870
     

432. 432

     Sankararaman Suryanarayanan, Andrew Karellas, Srinivasan Vedantham, Ioannis Sechopoulos. (2006) Theoretical analysis of high-resolution digital mammography. Physics in Medicine and Biology 51:12, 3041-3055
     

433. 433

     C. Ongeval, H. Bosmans, A. Steen, K. Joossens, V. Celis, M. Goethem, I. Verslegers, K. Nijs, F. Rogge, G. Marchal. (2006) Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a computed radiography system by comparison of digital hard copy images with screen–film mammography: results of a prospective clinical trial. European Radiology 16:6, 1360-1366
     

434. 434

     William Hobbins, William Amalu, Jonathan Head, Robert Elliott. Infrared Imaging of the Breast — An Overview. CRC Press, 2006:25-1-25-21.
     

435. 435

     Georgia D. Tourassi. Computer Assisted Radiology (CAR). In: Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
     

436. 436

     Kwan-Hoong Ng, Noriah Jamal. Mammography. In: Wiley Encyclopedia of Biomedical Engineering. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2006.
     

437. 437

     Nehmat Houssami, Les Irwig, Stefano Ciatto. (2006) Radiological surveillance of interval breast cancers in screening programmes. The Lancet Oncology 7:3, 259-265
     

438. 438

     D. David Dershaw. (2006) Status of Mammography after the Digital Mammography Imaging Screening Trial: Digital versus Film. The Breast Journal 12:2, 99-102
     

439. 439

     (2006) Digital and Film Mammography. New England Journal of Medicine 354:7, 765-767
     Free Full Text

440. 440

     R WAGNER. (2006) Toward a Strategy for Consensus Development on a Quantitative Approach to Medical Imaging. Academic Radiology 13:2, 137-139
     

441. 441

     Albert Cerussi, Natasha Shah, David Hsiang, Amanda Durkin, John Butler, Bruce J. Tromberg. (2006) In vivo absorption, scattering, and physiologic properties of 58 malignant breast tumors determined by broadband diffuse optical spectroscopy. Journal of Biomedical Optics 11:4, 044005
     

442. 442

     Hong Gwan Seo. (2006) Screening for Early Detection of Cancers II. Journal of the Korean Medical Association 49:6, 515
     

443. 443

     G. Hajdok, J. Yao, J. J. Battista, I. A. Cunningham. (2006) Signal and noise transfer properties of photoelectric interactions in diagnostic x-ray imaging detectors. Medical Physics 33:10, 3601
     

444. 444

     Jennifer A. Segui, Wei Zhao. (2006) Amorphous selenium flat panel detectors for digital mammography: Validation of a NPWE model observer with CDMAM observer performance experiments. Medical Physics 33:10, 3711
     

445. 445

     R.L. Birdwell. (2006) Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. Yearbook of Diagnostic Radiology 2006, 59-61
     

446. 446

     Hans Bornefalk. (2006) Implications of unchanged detection criteria with CAD as second reader of mammograms. Medical Physics 33:4, 922
     

447. 447

     Martin J. Yaffe, Gary T. Barnes, Colin G. Orton. (2006) Film mammography for breast cancer screening in younger women is no longer appropriate because of the demonstrated superiority of digital mammography for this age group. Medical Physics 33:11, 3979
     

448. 448

     Jun Ge, Berkman Sahiner, Lubomir M. Hadjiiski, Heang-Ping Chan, Jun Wei, Mark A. Helvie, Chuan Zhou. (2006) Computer aided detection of clusters of microcalcifications on full field digital mammograms. Medical Physics 33:8, 2975
     

449. 449

     Euclid Seeram. (2005) Digital Mammography: An Overview. Canadian Journal of Medical Radiation Technology 36:4, 15-23
     

450. 450

     Dershaw , D. David , . (2005) Film or Digital Mammographic Screening?. New England Journal of Medicine 353:17, 1846-1847
     Full Text

451. 451

     Hak Hee Kim. (2005) Soft Copy Digital Mammography. Korean Journal of Radiology 6:4, 206
     

Letters