Reduction of Advanced Breast Cancer Stages at Subsequent Participation in Mammography Screening
S. Weigel, W. Heindel, J. Heidrich, O. Heidinger, H. W. Hense
Rofo. 2015; doi: 10.1055/s-0041-107835
Digital Mammography Screening with Photon-counting Technique: Can a High Diagnostic Performance Be Realized at Low Mean Glandular Dose?
S. Weigel, S. Berkemeyer, R. Girnus, A. Sommer, H. Lenzen, W. Heindel
Radiology. 2014 May;271(2):345-55. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131181. Epub 2014 Feb 4.
Relationship between Detector Size and the Need for Extra Images and their Effect on Radiation Exposure in Digital Mammography Screening
K. Entz, A. Sommer, W. Heindel, H. Lenzen
Rofo. 2014; doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1356429
Guideline for Determining the Mean Glandular Dose According to DIN 6868-162 and Threshold Contrast Visibility According to the Quality Assurance Guideline for Digital Mammography Systems
A. Sommer, S. Schopphoven, I. Land, D. Blaser, T. Sobczak
Rofo. 2014 May;186(5):474-81. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1356284. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
Digital Mammography Screening: Association between Detection Rate and Nuclear Grade of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.
S. Weigel, W. Heindel, O. Heidinger, S. Berkemeyer, H.W. Hense
Radiology. 2014 Apr;271(1):38-44. doi: 10.1148/radiol.13131498. Epub 2013 Dec 6.
Digital mammography screening: how many breast cancers are additionally detected by bilateral ultrasound examination during assessment?
S. Weigel, C. Biesheuvel, S. Berkemeyer, H. Kugel, W. Heindel
Eur Radiol. 2013 Mar;23(3):684-91. doi: 10.1007/s00330-012-2664-2. Epub 2012 Oct 7.