Connection

Etta Pisano to Breast Neoplasms

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Breast Neoplasms.
Etta Pisano
Connection Strength
10.296
Breast Neoplasms
  1. How Radiologists Can Improve Breast Cancer Screening. Radiology. 2022 02; 302(2):295-297.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.397
  2. RE: Advanced Breast Cancer Definitions by Staging System Examined in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 07 01; 113(7):938-939.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.387
  3. AI shows promise for breast cancer screening. Nature. 2020 01; 577(7788):35-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.349
  4. Risk-Based Screening Mammography for Women Aged <40: Outcomes From the National Mammography Database. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Mar; 17(3):368-376.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.342
  5. Mammographic Density Change With Estrogen and Progestin Therapy and Breast Cancer Risk. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 09 01; 109(9).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.297
  6. Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program--Evidence that Direct Radiography Is Superior to Computed Radiography for Cancer Detection. Radiology. 2016 Feb; 278(2):311-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.266
  7. Ultrasound as the Primary Screening Test for Breast Cancer: Analysis From ACRIN 6666. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Apr; 108(4).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.264
  8. Tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. Clin Imaging. 2016 Mar-Apr; 40(2):283-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.259
  9. Impact of computer-aided detection systems on radiologist accuracy with digital mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Oct; 203(4):909-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.242
  10. Breast cancer screening: should tomosynthesis replace digital mammography? JAMA. 2014 Jun 25; 311(24):2488-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.238
  11. Assessing the stand-alone sensitivity of computer-aided detection with cancer cases from the Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Sep; 199(3):W392-401.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.210
  12. Comparison of radiologist performance with photon-counting full-field digital mammography to conventional full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2012 Aug; 19(8):916-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.205
  13. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial. Radiology. 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.191
  14. Mode of detection and secular time for ductal carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010; 2010(41):142-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.174
  15. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.174
  16. Cancer cases from ACRIN digital mammographic imaging screening trial: radiologist analysis with use of a logistic regression model. Radiology. 2009 Aug; 252(2):348-57.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.169
  17. Radiologist evaluation of an X-ray tube-based diffraction-enhanced imaging prototype using full-thickness breast specimens. Acad Radiol. 2009 Nov; 16(11):1329-37.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.169
  18. Mammographic findings of partial breast irradiation. Acad Radiol. 2009 Jul; 16(7):819-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.166
  19. Insurance status and the severity of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis. Acad Radiol. 2008 Oct; 15(10):1255-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.160
  20. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Feb; 246(2):376-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.153
  21. Two-modality mammography may confer an advantage over either full-field digital mammography or screen-film mammography. Acad Radiol. 2007 Jun; 14(6):670-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.146
  22. Comparison of three methods to increase knowledge about breast cancer and breast cancer screening in screening mammography patients. Acad Radiol. 2007 May; 14(5):553-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.145
  23. Morphologic blooming in breast MRI as a characterization of margin for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1344-54.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.140
  24. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):583-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.138
  25. Storage, transmission, and retrieval of digital mammography, including recommendations on image compression. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):609-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.138
  26. Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.138
  27. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 27; 353(17):1773-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.129
  28. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objectives and methodology. Radiology. 2005 Aug; 236(2):404-12.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.127
  29. Issues in breast cancer screening. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Feb; 4(1):5-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.124
  30. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and management of breast cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2004 Dec; 3(6):527-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.123
  31. Improved image contrast of calcifications in breast tissue specimens using diffraction enhanced imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2004 Aug 07; 49(15):3427-39.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.120
  32. Rosai-Dorfman disease presenting as a suspicious breast mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Jun; 180(6):1740-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.110
  33. Factors predicting successful needle-localized breast biopsy. Acad Radiol. 2003 Jun; 10(6):601-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.110
  34. Ultrasound in the management of breast disease. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2003 Apr; 3(2):156-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.109
  35. Congressional update: Report from the Biomedical Imaging Program of the National Cancer Institute. American College of Radiology Imaging Network: The digital mammographic imaging screening trial--an update. Acad Radiol. 2002 Mar; 9(3):374-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.101
  36. Linking Structural Racism and Discrimination and Breast Cancer Outcomes: A Social Genomics Approach. J Clin Oncol. 2022 05 01; 40(13):1407-1413.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.101
  37. Improving the detection of simulated masses in mammograms through two different image-processing techniques. Acad Radiol. 2001 Sep; 8(9):845-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.098
  38. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: results from the radiologic diagnostic oncology group V. Radiology. 2001 Jun; 219(3):785-92.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.096
  39. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology. 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.091
  40. Multi-Institutional Assessment and Crowdsourcing Evaluation of Deep Learning for Automated Classification of Breast Density. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Dec; 17(12):1653-1662.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  41. Discrimination of benign from malignant breast lesions in dense breasts with model-based analysis of regions-of-interest using directional diffusion-weighted images. BMC Med Imaging. 2020 06 09; 20(1):61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  42. Human breast cancer specimens: diffraction-enhanced imaging with histologic correlation--improved conspicuity of lesion detail compared with digital radiography. Radiology. 2000 Mar; 214(3):895-901.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.088
  43. Embolization coils as tumor markers for mammography in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for carcinoma of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Jan; 174(1):251-2.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.087
  44. Diagnosis please. Case 8: solitary intraductal papilloma. Radiology. 1999 Mar; 210(3):795-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.082
  45. Screening behavior of women after a false-positive mammogram. Radiology. 1998 Jul; 208(1):245-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.079
  46. MRI, Clinical Examination, and Mammography for Preoperative Assessment of Residual Disease and Pathologic Complete Response After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: ACRIN 6657 Trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jun; 210(6):1376-1385.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  47. Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening? Radiology. 2018 04; 287(1):47-48.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  48. Rate of insufficient samples for fine-needle aspiration for nonpalpable breast lesions in a multicenter clinical trial: The Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group 5 Study. The RDOG5 investigators. Cancer. 1998 Feb 15; 82(4):679-88.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.077
  49. Screening mammography behavior after a false positive mammogram. Cancer Detect Prev. 1998; 22(2):161-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.076
  50. MR spectroscopy of breast cancer for assessing early treatment response: Results from the ACRIN 6657 MRS trial. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 07; 46(1):290-302.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.071
  51. Virtual environments technology to aid needle biopsies of the breast. An example of real-time data fusion. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1996; 29:60-1.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  52. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Functional Tumor Volume by MR Imaging Predicts Recurrence-free Survival-Results from the ACRIN 6657/CALGB 150007 I-SPY 1 TRIAL. Radiology. 2016 Apr; 279(1):44-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  53. New modalities in breast imaging: digital mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1995 Jul; 35(1):31-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  54. Breast imaging fellowship programs. A survey of the fellows of the Society of Breast Imaging. Invest Radiol. 1994 Apr; 29(4):415-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  55. Assessing the role of ultrasound in predicting the biological behavior of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Feb; 200(2):284-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  56. Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy--results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. Radiology. 2012 Jun; 263(3):663-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.052
  57. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012 Apr 04; 307(13):1394-404.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  58. The politics of mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992 Jan; 30(1):235-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  59. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jan; 198(1):219-32.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  60. Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2012 Apr 15; 118(8):2021-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  61. Implementation of breast cancer screening. Curr Opin Radiol. 1991 Aug; 3(4):579-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  62. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology. 2011 Jan; 258(1):59-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  63. Dietary vitamin D and calcium intake and mammographic density in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2010 Nov-Dec; 17(6):1152-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  64. Issues in mammography. Cancer. 1990 Sep 15; 66(6 Suppl):1341-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  65. Comparison of acquisition parameters and breast dose in digital mammography and screen-film mammography in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Feb; 194(2):362-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  66. Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666. Radiology. 2010 Jan; 254(1):79-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  67. Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the coalition of cancer cooperative groups scientific leadership council: imaging and local therapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Apr; 120(2):273-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  68. Conjugated equine estrogen influence on mammographic density in postmenopausal women in a substudy of the women's health initiative randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20; 27(36):6135-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  69. Preoperative localization of inferior breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989 Aug; 153(2):272.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  70. Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21; 54(10):3247-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  71. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  72. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  73. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  74. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008 May 14; 299(18):2151-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  75. Accuracy of soft-copy digital mammography versus that of screen-film mammography according to digital manufacturer: ACRIN DMIST retrospective multireader study. Radiology. 2008 Apr; 247(1):38-48.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  76. Should breast imaging practices convert to digital mammography? A response from members of the DMIST Executive Committee. Radiology. 2007 Oct; 245(1):12-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  77. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007 Aug; 244(2):381-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  78. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 29; 356(13):1295-303.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  79. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007 Mar-Apr; 57(2):75-89.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  80. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  81. Correlation of HER-2/neu overexpression with mammography and age distribution in primary breast carcinomas. Acad Radiol. 2006 Oct; 13(10):1211-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  82. The positive predictive value for diagnosis of breast cancer full-field digital mammography versus film-screen mammography in the diagnostic mammographic population. Acad Radiol. 2006 Oct; 13(10):1229-35.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  83. Comparison of calcification specificity in digital mammography using soft-copy display versus screen-film mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Jul; 187(1):47-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  84. Consensus review: A method of assessment of calcifications that appropriately undergo a six-month follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2006 May; 13(5):621-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  85. Computation of mass-density images from x-ray refraction-angle images. Phys Med Biol. 2006 Apr 07; 51(7):1769-78.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.034
  86. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  87. Quality control for digital mammography: part II. Recommendations from the ACRIN DMIST trial. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):737-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  88. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2006 Jan; 238(1):42-53.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  89. Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. J Surg Oncol. 2005 Oct 01; 92(1):9-15; discussion 15-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  90. MRI detection of distinct incidental cancer in women with primary breast cancer studied in IBMC 6883. J Surg Oncol. 2005 Oct 01; 92(1):32-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  91. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to contrast and spatial resolution in tissue equivalent breast phantoms. Med Phys. 2005 Oct; 32(10):3144-50.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  92. A comparative study of 2D and 3D ultrasonography for evaluation of solid breast masses. Eur J Radiol. 2005 Jun; 54(3):365-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  93. Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer. 2005 May 01; 103(9):1898-905.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  94. Low-dose multidetector dynamic CT in the breast: preliminary study. Clin Imaging. 2005 May-Jun; 29(3):172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.032
  95. Future directions in breast imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 10; 23(8):1674-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  96. Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique. Med Phys. 2005 Feb; 32(2):549-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  97. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004 Dec 08; 292(22):2735-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  98. Stereotactic and sonographic large-core biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: results of the Radiologic Diagnostic Oncology Group V study. Acad Radiol. 2004 Mar; 11(3):293-308.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  99. Diagnostic agreement in the evaluation of image-guided breast core needle biopsies: results from a randomized clinical trial. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004 Jan; 28(1):126-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  100. Cortisol levels and responses to mammography screening in breast cancer survivors: a pilot study. Psychosom Med. 2003 Sep-Oct; 65(5):842-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  101. Pregnancy- and lactation-associated breast cancer: mammographic and sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2003 May; 22(5):491-7; quiz 498-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  102. Comparison of full-field digital mammography to screen-film mammography with respect to diagnostic accuracy of lesion characterization in breast tissue biopsy specimens. Acad Radiol. 2002 Dec; 9(12):1378-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  103. Should FDG PET be used to decide whether a patient with an abnormal mammogram or breast finding at physical examination should undergo biopsy? Acad Radiol. 2002 Jul; 9(7):773-83.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  104. Digital mammography, sestamibi breast scintigraphy, and positron emission tomography breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am. 2000 Jul; 38(4):861-9, x.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  105. Effect of display luminance on the feature detection rates of masses in mammograms. Med Phys. 1999 Nov; 26(11):2266-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  106. Paget disease of the breast: a pictorial essay. Radiographics. 1998 Nov-Dec; 18(6):1459-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  107. A program to control breast and cervical cancer in North Carolina. N C Med J. 1998 Mar-Apr; 59(2):110-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  108. Future directions in imaging of breast diseases. Radiology. 1998 Feb; 206(2):297-300.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  109. Does intensity windowing improve the detection of simulated calcifications in dense mammograms? J Digit Imaging. 1997 May; 10(2):79-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.018
  110. Patient compliance in mobile screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1995 Dec; 2(12):1067-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  111. A method for determination of optimal image enhancement for the detection of mammographic abnormalities. J Digit Imaging. 1994 Nov; 7(4):161-71.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  112. Strategies for more effective delivery of mammography screening services. Curr Opin Radiol. 1990 Oct; 2(5):726-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  113. Estrogen-plus-progestin use and mammographic density in postmenopausal women: Women's Health Initiative randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Sep 21; 97(18):1366-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  114. Imaging and cancer: research strategy of the American College of Radiology Imaging Network. Radiology. 2005 Jun; 235(3):741-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  115. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol. 2004 Aug; 11(8):879-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  116. Prevention and early detection clinical trials: opportunities for primary care providers and their patients. CA Cancer J Clin. 2003 Mar-Apr; 53(2):82-101.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  117. Mammographic phantom studies with synchrotron radiation. Radiology. 1996 Sep; 200(3):659-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  118. Effects of delayed processing on mammographic phantom object detection. Invest Radiol. 1993 Dec; 28(12):1113-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.