72 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15714210)
41. Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer.
Taplin SH; Rutter CM; Finder C; Mandelson MT; Houn F; White E
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Apr; 178(4):797-803. PubMed ID: 11906848
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. All-cause mortality in randomized trials of cancer screening.
Black WC; Haggstrom DA; Welch HG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Feb; 94(3):167-73. PubMed ID: 11830606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Computer modelling of the Swedish two county trial of mammographic screening and trade offs between participation and screening interval.
Fett MJ
J Med Screen; 2001; 8(1):39-45. PubMed ID: 11373849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Ten years of breast screening in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia, 1988-97.
Olivotto IA; Kan L; d'Yachkova Y; Burhenne LJ; Hayes M; Hislop TG; Worth AJ; Basco VE; King S
J Med Screen; 2000; 7(3):152-9. PubMed ID: 11126165
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.
Tabár L; Vitak B; Chen HH; Duffy SW; Yen MF; Chiang CF; Krusemo UB; Tot T; Smith RA
Radiol Clin North Am; 2000 Jul; 38(4):625-51. PubMed ID: 10943268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program.
Kan L; Olivotto IA; Warren Burhenne LJ; Sickles EA; Coldman AJ
Radiology; 2000 May; 215(2):563-7. PubMed ID: 10796940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. The breast carcinoma screening interval is important.
Michaelson JS; Kopans DB; Cady B
Cancer; 2000 Mar; 88(6):1282-4. PubMed ID: 10717607
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
48. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. EORTC Breast Cancer Cooperative Group and EORTC Radiotherapy Group.
Julien JP; Bijker N; Fentiman IS; Peterse JL; Delledonne V; Rouanet P; Avril A; Sylvester R; Mignolet F; Bartelink H; Van Dongen JA
Lancet; 2000 Feb; 355(9203):528-33. PubMed ID: 10683002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.
Porter PL; El-Bastawissi AY; Mandelson MT; Lin MG; Khalid N; Watney EA; Cousens L; White D; Taplin S; White E
J Natl Cancer Inst; 1999 Dec; 91(23):2020-8. PubMed ID: 10580027
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Outcome analysis for women undergoing annual versus biennial screening mammography: a review of 24,211 examinations.
Hunt KA; Rosen EL; Sickles EA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Aug; 173(2):285-9. PubMed ID: 10430120
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Breast cancer: computer simulation method for estimating optimal intervals for screening.
Michaelson JS; Halpern E; Kopans DB
Radiology; 1999 Aug; 212(2):551-60. PubMed ID: 10429717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial.
Fisher B; Dignam J; Wolmark N; Wickerham DL; Fisher ER; Mamounas E; Smith R; Begovic M; Dimitrov NV; Margolese RG; Kardinal CG; Kavanah MT; Fehrenbacher L; Oishi RH
Lancet; 1999 Jun; 353(9169):1993-2000. PubMed ID: 10376613
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening.
Alexander FE; Anderson TJ; Brown HK; Forrest AP; Hepburn W; Kirkpatrick AE; Muir BB; Prescott RJ; Smith A
Lancet; 1999 Jun; 353(9168):1903-8. PubMed ID: 10371567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. The cost-effectiveness of mammography screening: evidence from a microsimulation model for New Zealand.
Szeto KL; Devlin NJ
Health Policy; 1996 Nov; 38(2):101-15. PubMed ID: 10160378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Relationship between mammographic screening intervals and size and histology of ductal carcinoma in situ.
Carlson KL; Helvie MA; Roubidoux MA; Kleer CG; Oberman HA; Wilson TE; Pollak EW; Rochester AB
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Feb; 172(2):313-7. PubMed ID: 9930774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.
Elmore JG; Barton MB; Moceri VM; Polk S; Arena PJ; Fletcher SW
N Engl J Med; 1998 Apr; 338(16):1089-96. PubMed ID: 9545356
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Mammographic screening in women more than 64 years old: a comparison of 1- and 2-year intervals.
Field LR; Wilson TE; Strawderman M; Gabriel H; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Apr; 170(4):961-5. PubMed ID: 9530044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization.
Bjurstam N; Björneld L; Duffy SW; Smith TC; Cahlin E; Eriksson O; Hafström LO; Lingaas H; Mattsson J; Persson S; Rudenstam CM; Säve-Söderbergh J
Cancer; 1997 Dec; 80(11):2091-9. PubMed ID: 9392331
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Optimisation of mammographic breast cancer screening using a computer simulation model.
Jansen JT; Zoetelief J
Eur J Radiol; 1997 Feb; 24(2):137-44. PubMed ID: 9097056
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Breast cancer in women 65-74 years old: earlier detection by mammographic screening.
Gabriel H; Wilson TE; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Jan; 168(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 8976913
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
