Connection

Etta Pisano to Mammography

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Etta Pisano has written about Mammography.
Etta Pisano
Connection Strength
15.672
Mammography
  1. 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: 0.549
  2. Is Tomosynthesis the Future of Breast Cancer Screening? Radiology. 2018 04; 287(1):47-48.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.496
  3. Robert McLelland, MD. Radiology. 2017 Dec; 285(3):1066.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.485
  4. 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: 0.427
  5. Tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. Clin Imaging. 2016 Mar-Apr; 40(2):283-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.417
  6. 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: 0.389
  7. Breast cancer screening: should tomosynthesis replace digital mammography? JAMA. 2014 Jun 25; 311(24):2488-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.382
  8. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Jun; 174(6):954-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.381
  9. 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: 0.337
  10. 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: 0.329
  11. 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: 0.307
  12. Comparison of image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times in a diagnostic mammography center. Acad Radiol. 2010 Sep; 17(9):1168-74.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.289
  13. Effect of breast compression on lesion characteristic visibility with diffraction-enhanced imaging. Acad Radiol. 2010 Apr; 17(4):433-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.280
  14. 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: 0.272
  15. 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: 0.271
  16. Mammographic findings of partial breast irradiation. Acad Radiol. 2009 Jul; 16(7):819-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.267
  17. 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: 0.245
  18. 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: 0.240
  19. Issues to consider in converting to digital mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 Sep; 45(5):813-30, vi.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.238
  20. 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: 0.234
  21. 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: 0.233
  22. Digital mammography: what next? J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):583-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.221
  23. Image quality in digital mammography: image acquisition. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):589-608.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.221
  24. 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: 0.221
  25. Digital mammography image quality: image display. J Am Coll Radiol. 2006 Aug; 3(8):615-27.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.221
  26. 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: 0.208
  27. 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: 0.205
  28. Issues in breast cancer screening. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2005 Feb; 4(1):5-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.199
  29. Digital mammography. Radiology. 2005 Feb; 234(2):353-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.199
  30. 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: 0.193
  31. Factors affecting increasing radiation dose for mammography in North Carolina from 1997 through 2001: an analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual surveys. Acad Radiol. 2004 May; 11(5):536-43.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.189
  32. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology. 2002 May; 223(2):483-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.165
  33. 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: 0.163
  34. 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: 0.157
  35. Factors affecting phantom scores at annual mammography facility inspections by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Acad Radiol. 2001 Sep; 8(9):864-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.157
  36. Radiologists' preferences for digital mammographic display. The International Digital Mammography Development Group. Radiology. 2000 Sep; 216(3):820-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.147
  37. Image processing algorithms for digital mammography: a pictorial essay. Radiographics. 2000 Sep-Oct; 20(5):1479-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.147
  38. 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: 0.145
  39. Has the mammography quality standards act affected the mammography quality in North Carolina? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Apr; 174(4):1089-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.143
  40. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2000 Apr; 7(4):266-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.143
  41. 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: 0.142
  42. AI shows promise for breast cancer screening. Nature. 2020 01; 577(7788):35-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.140
  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: 0.140
  44. Current status of full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2000 Jan; 214(1):26-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.140
  45. 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: 0.138
  46. Effects of processing conditions on mammographic image quality. Acad Radiol. 1999 Aug; 6(8):464-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.136
  47. Contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization image processing to improve the detection of simulated spiculations in dense mammograms. J Digit Imaging. 1998 Nov; 11(4):193-200.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.129
  48. Screening behavior of women after a false-positive mammogram. Radiology. 1998 Jul; 208(1):245-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.126
  49. Educational outreach to mammography facility staff to assist with compliance with the Mammography Quality Standards Act in rural North Carolina. Acad Radiol. 1998 Jul; 5(7):485-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.126
  50. Screening mammography behavior after a false positive mammogram. Cancer Detect Prev. 1998; 22(2):161-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.122
  51. The effect of intensity windowing on the detection of simulated masses embedded in dense portions of digitized mammograms in a laboratory setting. J Digit Imaging. 1997 Nov; 10(4):174-82.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.121
  52. 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: 0.116
  53. 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: 0.106
  54. Patient compliance in mobile screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 1995 Dec; 2(12):1067-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.106
  55. 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: 0.103
  56. 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: 0.094
  57. A formal curriculum in breast imaging for radiology residents. Invest Radiol. 1993 Aug; 28(8):762-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.090
  58. Automated delineation of calcified vessels in mammography by tracking with uncertainty and graphical linking techniques. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2012 Nov; 31(11):2143-55.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.084
  59. The politics of mammography. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992 Jan; 30(1):235-41.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.080
  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: 0.079
  61. Implementation of breast cancer screening. Curr Opin Radiol. 1991 Aug; 3(4):579-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.078
  62. Dietary vitamin D and calcium intake and mammographic density in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2010 Nov-Dec; 17(6):1152-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  63. Strategies for more effective delivery of mammography screening services. Curr Opin Radiol. 1990 Oct; 2(5):726-33.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  64. Issues in mammography. Cancer. 1990 Sep 15; 66(6 Suppl):1341-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  65. Optimal multidetector row CT parameters for evaluations of the breast: a phantom and specimen study. Acad Radiol. 2010 Jun; 17(6):744-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.072
  66. 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: 0.070
  67. 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: 0.070
  68. Preoperative localization of inferior breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1989 Aug; 153(2):272.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.068
  69. Characterization of diffraction-enhanced imaging contrast in breast cancer. Phys Med Biol. 2009 May 21; 54(10):3247-56.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.067
  70. Comparison of soft-copy and hard-copy reading for full-field digital mammography. Radiology. 2009 Apr; 251(1):41-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.066
  71. Detection of arterial calcification in mammograms by random walks. Inf Process Med Imaging. 2009; 21:713-24.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.065
  72. A limitation of ACRIN DMIST. Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):702; author reply 702-3.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  73. DMIST results: technologic or observer variability? Radiology. 2008 Aug; 248(2):703; author reply 703.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.064
  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: 0.063
  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: 0.062
  76. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 01; 148(1):1-10.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.061
  77. Factors affecting decreasing radiation dose for mammography in North Carolina after 2002: an analysis of Food and Drug Administration annual surveys. Acad Radiol. 2007 Jun; 14(6):685-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.059
  78. 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: 0.058
  79. Comparison of LCD and CRT displays based on efficacy for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2006 Nov; 13(11):1317-26.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.056
  80. 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: 0.056
  81. 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: 0.056
  82. 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: 0.055
  83. 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: 0.054
  84. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys. 2006 Mar; 33(3):719-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  85. 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: 0.054
  86. 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: 0.052
  87. 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: 0.052
  88. 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: 0.052
  89. 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: 0.051
  90. The effects of gray scale image processing on digital mammography interpretation performance. Acad Radiol. 2005 May; 12(5):585-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.051
  91. Future directions in breast imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Mar 10; 23(8):1674-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  92. Mass density images from the diffraction enhanced imaging technique. Med Phys. 2005 Feb; 32(2):549-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.050
  93. 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: 0.048
  94. Online annotation tool for digital mammography. Acad Radiol. 2004 May; 11(5):566-72.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.047
  95. Does biopsy, aspiration or six-month follow-up of a false-positive mammogram reduce future screening or have large psychosocial effects? Acad Radiol. 2003 Nov; 10(11):1257-66.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  96. 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: 0.045
  97. Ultrasound in the management of breast disease. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2003 Apr; 3(2):156-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.044
  98. Diagnostic accuracy of digital mammography in patients with dense breasts who underwent problem-solving mammography: effects of image processing and lesion type. Radiology. 2003 Jan; 226(1):153-60.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  99. 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: 0.042
  100. Technical Note: Volumetric coverage in breast tomosynthesis images - Phantom QC results from the TMIST study. Med Phys. 2021 Jul; 48(7):3623-3629.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.039
  101. Communicating results of diagnostic mammography: what do patients think? Acad Radiol. 2000 Dec; 7(12):1069-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.037
  102. 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: 0.036
  103. Informing patients of diagnostic mammography results: mammographer's opinions. Acad Radiol. 2000 May; 7(5):335-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  104. Diagnosis please. Case 8: solitary intraductal papilloma. Radiology. 1999 Mar; 210(3):795-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.033
  105. 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: 0.031
  106. 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: 0.031
  107. Future directions in imaging of breast diseases. Radiology. 1998 Feb; 206(2):297-300.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  108. A pilot study of eye movement during mammography interpretation: eyetracker results and workstation design implications. J Digit Imaging. 1997 Feb; 10(1):14-20.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  109. Mammographic phantom studies with synchrotron radiation. Radiology. 1996 Sep; 200(3):659-63.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  110. 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: 0.024
  111. Effects of delayed processing on mammographic phantom object detection. Invest Radiol. 1993 Dec; 28(12):1113-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  112. 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: 0.020
  113. 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: 0.020
  114. 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: 0.018
  115. 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: 0.017
  116. 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: 0.015
  117. 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: 0.014
  118. A comparative study of mobile electronic data entry systems for clinical trials data collection. Int J Med Inform. 2006 Oct-Nov; 75(10-11):722-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.013
  119. 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: 0.013
  120. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA. 2004 Dec 08; 292(22):2735-42.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  121. 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: 0.012
  122. 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: 0.012
  123. 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: 0.011
  124. 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: 0.011
  125. Paget disease of the breast: a pictorial essay. Radiographics. 1998 Nov-Dec; 18(6):1459-64.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
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.