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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17211314)

  • 1. [Specifications for organized breast cancer screening. Specifications for radiologists].
    J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 87(12 Spec No 1):1S27-46. PubMed ID: 17211314
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Specifications for organized breast cancer screening. Specifications for management structures].
    J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 87(12 Spec No 1):1S3-25. PubMed ID: 17211313
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.
    Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N
    Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. ACR system enhances mammography reporting.
    Kopans D; D'Orsi C
    Diagn Imaging (San Franc); 1992 Sep; 14(9):125-32. PubMed ID: 10183943
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. New Zealand's first population based breast cancer screening programme.
    Elwood JM; Doyle TC; Richardson AK
    N Z Med J; 1991 Jun; 104(914):258-60. PubMed ID: 2057153
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Preliminary report of an intervention to improve mammography skills of radiologists.
    D'Orsi CJ; Karellas A; Costanza ME; Gaw VP
    Prog Clin Biol Res; 1989; 293():151-7. PubMed ID: 2726930
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. [The french model for organized screening for breast cancer: the specifications have been published].
    Séradour B
    J Radiol; 2006 Dec; 87(12 Pt 1):1819. PubMed ID: 17213765
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Limitations of minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.
    Doyle GP; Onysko J; Pogany L; Major D; Caines J; Shumak R; Wadden N; Carney PA; Sickles EA; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2011 Mar; 258(3):960-1. PubMed ID: 21339358
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography.
    Feig SA
    Radiol Clin North Am; 2007 Sep; 45(5):791-800, vi. PubMed ID: 17888769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Initiating a National Mammographic Screening Program: The Kuwait Experience Training With a US Cancer Center.
    Mango VL; Al-Khawari H; Dershaw DD; Ashkanani MH; Pennisi B; Turner P; Thornton C; Morris EA
    J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Feb; 16(2):202-207. PubMed ID: 30266407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Characteristics of breast carcinomas missed by screening radiologists.
    Goergen SK; Evans J; Cohen GP; MacMillan JH
    Radiology; 1997 Jul; 204(1):131-5. PubMed ID: 9205234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. A portrait of breast imaging specialists and of the interpretation of mammography in the United States.
    Lewis RS; Sunshine JH; Bhargavan M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2006 Nov; 187(5):W456-68. PubMed ID: 17056875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms.
    Laming D; Warren R
    J Med Screen; 2000; 7(1):24-30. PubMed ID: 10807143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Medical radiologic technologist review: effects on a population-based breast cancer screening program.
    Tonita JM; Hillis JP; Lim CH
    Radiology; 1999 May; 211(2):529-33. PubMed ID: 10228538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.
    Tan A; Freeman DH; Goodwin JS; Freeman JL
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 Dec; 100(3):309-18. PubMed ID: 16819566
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Breast cancer screening: a current topic].
    Gilles R; Dilhuydy M
    J Radiol; 2001 Jun; 82(6 Pt 1):619-20. PubMed ID: 11449163
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Medical malpractice in relation to mammography.
    Dubinsky T; Berlin JW; Berlin L
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Feb; 184(2):699-700; author reply 700-1. PubMed ID: 15671407
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Organised mammographic screening--more benefits than harms.
    Hofvind S
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2013 Mar; 133(6):619-20. PubMed ID: 23552154
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A blind review and an informed review of interval breast cancer cases in the Limburg screening programme, the Netherlands.
    de Rijke JM; Schouten LJ; Schreutelkamp JL; Jochem I; Verbeek AL
    J Med Screen; 2000; 7(1):19-23. PubMed ID: 10807142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards: An Opportunity for Radiologists to Demonstrate Value.
    Lesslie MD; Parikh JR
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Jan; 24(1):107-110. PubMed ID: 27793581
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.