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.
The incidence of interval cancers in the german mammography screening program: results from the population-based cancer registry in north rhine-westphalia.
O. Heidinger, W. Batzler, V. Krieg, S. Weigel, C. Biesheuvel, W. Heindel, H. Hense
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2012 Nov;109(46):781-7. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2012.0781. Epub 2012 Nov 16.
Imaging of precursor lesions of the female breast
S. Weigel, T. Decker, W. Heindel
Radiologie up2date 2012; 12(2): 127-140; doi: 10.1055/s-0031-1291722