These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
317 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14627668)
1. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. Amir E; Evans DG; Shenton A; Lalloo F; Moran A; Boggis C; Wilson M; Howell A J Med Genet; 2003 Nov; 40(11):807-14. PubMed ID: 14627668 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China. Zhang L; Jie Z; Xu S; Zhang L; Guo X Med Sci Monit; 2018 Aug; 24():5528-5532. PubMed ID: 30089770 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of mathematical models for breast cancer risk assessment in routine clinical use. Fasching PA; Bani MR; Nestle-Krämling C; Goecke TO; Niederacher D; Beckmann MW; Lux MP Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Jun; 16(3):216-24. PubMed ID: 17415092 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast cancer risk assessment in 8,824 women attending a family history evaluation and screening programme. Evans DG; Ingham S; Dawe S; Roberts L; Lalloo F; Brentnall AR; Stavrinos P; Howell A Fam Cancer; 2014 Jun; 13(2):189-96. PubMed ID: 24276527 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort. Brentnall AR; Harkness EF; Astley SM; Donnelly LS; Stavrinos P; Sampson S; Fox L; Sergeant JC; Harvie MN; Wilson M; Beetles U; Gadde S; Lim Y; Jain A; Bundred S; Barr N; Reece V; Howell A; Cuzick J; Evans DG Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Dec; 17(1):147. PubMed ID: 26627479 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density. Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Buist DSM; Bowles EJA JAMA Oncol; 2018 Sep; 4(9):e180174. PubMed ID: 29621362 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose? Jacobi CE; de Bock GH; Siegerink B; van Asperen CJ Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 May; 115(2):381-90. PubMed ID: 18516672 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia. Boughey JC; Hartmann LC; Anderson SS; Degnim AC; Vierkant RA; Reynolds CA; Frost MH; Pankratz VS J Clin Oncol; 2010 Aug; 28(22):3591-6. PubMed ID: 20606088 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort. McCarthy AM; Guan Z; Welch M; Griffin ME; Sippo DA; Deng Z; Coopey SB; Acar A; Semine A; Parmigiani G; Braun D; Hughes KS J Natl Cancer Inst; 2020 May; 112(5):489-497. PubMed ID: 31556450 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The impact of patient age on breast cancer risk prediction models. Coopey SB; Acar A; Griffin M; Cintolo-Gonzalez J; Semine A; Hughes KS Breast J; 2018 Jul; 24(4):592-598. PubMed ID: 29316072 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparisons of two breast cancer risk estimates in women with a family history of breast cancer. McTiernan A; Kuniyuki A; Yasui Y; Bowen D; Burke W; Culver JB; Anderson R; Durfy S Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2001 Apr; 10(4):333-8. PubMed ID: 11319173 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative. Kurian AW; Hughes E; Simmons T; Bernhisel R; Probst B; Meek S; Caswell-Jin JL; John EM; Lanchbury JS; Slavin TP; Wagner S; Gutin A; Rohan TE; Shadyab AH; Manson JE; Lane D; Chlebowski RT; Stefanick ML Cancer; 2021 Oct; 127(20):3742-3750. PubMed ID: 34228814 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Integrating Clinical and Polygenic Factors to Predict Breast Cancer Risk in Women Undergoing Genetic Testing. Hughes E; Tshiaba P; Wagner S; Judkins T; Rosenthal E; Roa B; Gallagher S; Meek S; Dalton K; Hedegard W; Adami CA; Grear DF; Domchek SM; Garber J; Lancaster JM; Weitzel JN; Kurian AW; Lanchbury JS; Gutin A; Robson ME JCO Precis Oncol; 2021; 5():. PubMed ID: 34036224 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study. Glynn RJ; Colditz GA; Tamimi RM; Chen WY; Hankinson SE; Willett WW; Rosner B Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2019 Jul; 28(7):1187-1194. PubMed ID: 31015199 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population. Stevanato KP; Pedroso RB; Iora P; Santos LD; Pelloso FC; Melo WA; Carvalho MDB; Pelloso SM Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Nov; 20(11):3407-3413. PubMed ID: 31759366 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. An integrated breast cancer risk assessment and management model based on fuzzy cognitive maps. Subramanian J; Karmegam A; Papageorgiou E; Papandrianos N; Vasukie A Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2015 Mar; 118(3):280-97. PubMed ID: 25697987 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry. Pal Choudhury P; Brook MN; Hurson AN; Lee A; Mulder CV; Coulson P; Schoemaker MJ; Jones ME; Swerdlow AJ; Chatterjee N; Antoniou AC; Garcia-Closas M Breast Cancer Res; 2021 Feb; 23(1):22. PubMed ID: 33588869 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Variation in Breast Cancer Risk Model Estimates Among Women in Their 40s Seen in Primary Care. Schonberg MA; Karamourtopoulos M; Pinheiro A; Davis RB; Sternberg SB; Mehta TS; Gilliam EA; Tung NM J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2022 Apr; 31(4):495-502. PubMed ID: 35073183 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]