2023
Editorial Comment: Artificial Intelligence May Help Define Screening Strategies in Patients With Dense Breasts.
Butler R. Editorial Comment: Artificial Intelligence May Help Define Screening Strategies in Patients With Dense Breasts. American Journal Of Roentgenology 2023, 222: e2330042. PMID: 37556603, DOI: 10.2214/ajr.23.30042.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchPACS-integrated machine learning breast density classifier: clinical validation
Lewin J, Schoenherr S, Seebass M, Lin M, Philpotts L, Etesami M, Butler R, Durand M, Heller S, Heacock L, Moy L, Tocino I, Westerhoff M. PACS-integrated machine learning breast density classifier: clinical validation. Clinical Imaging 2023, 101: 200-205. PMID: 37421715, DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.06.023.Peer-Reviewed Original Research
2022
Optoacoustic Imaging With Decision Support for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A 15-Reader Retrospective Study.
Seiler S, Neuschler E, Butler R, Lavin P, Dogan B. Optoacoustic Imaging With Decision Support for Differentiation of Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A 15-Reader Retrospective Study. American Journal Of Roentgenology 2022, 220: 646-658. PMID: 36475811, DOI: 10.2214/ajr.22.28470.Peer-Reviewed Original Research
2020
Digital Breast Tomosynthesis May Not Provide Optimal Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors.
Hooley R, Butler R. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis May Not Provide Optimal Surveillance of Breast Cancer Survivors. Radiology 2020, 298: 317-318. PMID: 33355509, DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2020204219.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchInvited Commentary: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening Strategies-What's New?
Butler R. Invited Commentary: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening Strategies-What's New? RadioGraphics 2020, 40: 937-940. PMID: 32478602, DOI: 10.1148/rg.2020190218.Peer-Reviewed Original Research
2019
Optoacoustic Imaging and Gray-Scale US Features of Breast Cancers: Correlation with Molecular Subtypes.
Dogan BE, Menezes GLG, Butler RS, Neuschler EI, Aitchison R, Lavin PT, Tucker FL, Grobmyer SR, Otto PM, Stavros AT. Optoacoustic Imaging and Gray-Scale US Features of Breast Cancers: Correlation with Molecular Subtypes. Radiology 2019, 292: 564-572. PMID: 31287388, DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182071.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsBreast cancer molecular subtypesHuman epidermal growth factor receptorLuminal breast cancerCancer molecular subtypesUS featuresEpidermal growth factor receptorMolecular subtypesGrowth factor receptorBreast cancerProspective multi-institutional studyFactor receptorLogistic regression analysisMulti-institutional studyLogistic regression modelsMultinomial logistic regression analysisGray-scale USMultinomial logistic regression modelsImmunohistochemistry findingsMean ageInvasive cancerPathologic diagnosisPathology reportsUS scoreKruskal-Wallis testCancer subtypes
2017
A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists
Neuschler EI, Butler R, Young CA, Barke LD, Bertrand ML, Böhm-Vélez M, Destounis S, Donlan P, Grobmyer SR, Katzen J, Kist KA, Lavin PT, Makariou EV, Parris TM, Schilling KJ, Tucker FL, Dogan BE. A Pivotal Study of Optoacoustic Imaging to Diagnose Benign and Malignant Breast Masses: A New Evaluation Tool for Radiologists. Radiology 2017, 287: 172228. PMID: 29178816, DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017172228.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsProbability of malignancyNegative likelihood ratioGrayscale ultrasonographyIndependent readersMalignant breast massesBreast massesBlinded independent readersMalignant massesBI-RADS 3Negative predictive valueData System (BI-RADS) categoryBreast Imaging ReportingBI-RADS categoryLikelihood ratioOA featuresHistologic findingsBI-RADS categoriesNegative examinationsPretest probabilityProtocol deviationsHistologic resultsOnline supplemental materialUltrasonographyDiagnostic utilityPredictive value
2015
Invited Commentary: The Breast Density Dilemma—Challenges, Lessons, and Future Directions
Butler RS. Invited Commentary: The Breast Density Dilemma—Challenges, Lessons, and Future Directions. RadioGraphics 2015, 35: 324-6. PMID: 25763720, DOI: 10.1148/rg.352140276.Peer-Reviewed Original Research
2013
Response.
Hooley RJ, Greenberg K, Stackhouse RM, Geisel J, Butler R, Philpotts LE. Response. Radiology 2013, 266: 998-9. PMID: 23550287.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchBreast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: physiologic changes and common benign entities.
Vashi R, Hooley R, Butler R, Geisel J, Philpotts L. Breast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: physiologic changes and common benign entities. American Journal Of Roentgenology 2013, 200: 329-36. PMID: 23345354, DOI: 10.2214/ajr.12.9845.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsPhysiologic changesCommon benign breast diseasesPregnancy-associated breast cancerBenign breast diseaseCommon benign entitiesBenign breast abnormalitiesBreast diseaseImaging featuresBenign entityPatient managementBreast cancerBreast abnormalitiesBreast imagingPregnancyHistologicCancerAbnormalitiesBreastDisease