| pubmed-article:18356138 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0006142 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0011923 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0040405 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0332305 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1707455 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0032743 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0439858 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0302995 | lld:lifeskim |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:issue | 7 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:dateCreated | 2008-6-26 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:abstractText | The presence, extent and localization of distant metastases are key prognostic factors in breast cancer patients and play a central role in therapeutic decision making. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG-PET) with that of computed tomography (CT) and conventional imaging including chest radiography, abdominal ultrasound and bone scintigraphy. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:chemical | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:month | Jul | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:issn | 1569-8041 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:BrennerWW | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HühnerSS | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:HabermannC... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:AvrilNN | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:JenickeLL | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:SchirrmacherS... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:Dose-SchwarzJ... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:issnType | Electronic | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:volume | 19 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:pagination | 1249-54 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:18356138... | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:year | 2008 | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:articleTitle | Comparison between positron emission tomography using 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, conventional imaging and computed tomography for staging of breast cancer. | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:affiliation | Department of Gynecologic Oncology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. s.mahner@uke.uni-hamburg.de | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:publicationType | Comparative Study | lld:pubmed |
| pubmed-article:18356138 | pubmed:publicationType | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:18356138 | lld:pubmed |
| http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:18356138 | lld:pubmed |
