148 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17848684)
1. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Importance of comparison of current and prior mammograms in breast cancer screening.
Roelofs AA; Karssemeijer N; Wedekind N; Beck C; van Woudenberg S; Snoeren PR; Hendriks JH; Rosselli del Turco M; Bjurstam N; Junkermann H; Beijerinck D; Séradour B; Evertsz CJ
Radiology; 2007 Jan; 242(1):70-7. PubMed ID: 17185661
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A review of interval breast cancers diagnosed among participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program.
Payne JI; Caines JS; Gallant J; Foley TJ
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):96-103. PubMed ID: 23169791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Missed and true interval and screen-detected breast cancers in a population based screening program.
Hoff SR; Samset JH; Abrahamsen AL; Vigeland E; Klepp O; Hofvind S
Acad Radiol; 2011 Apr; 18(4):454-60. PubMed ID: 21216632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification.
Burhenne HJ; Burhenne LW; Goldberg F; Hislop TG; Worth AJ; Rebbeck PM; Kan L
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 May; 162(5):1067-71; discussion 1072-5. PubMed ID: 8165983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interval breast cancers: absolute and proportional incidence and blinded review in a community mammographic screening program.
Carbonaro LA; Azzarone A; Paskeh BB; Brambilla G; Brunelli S; Calori A; Caumo F; Malerba P; Menicagli L; Sconfienza LM; Vadalà G; Brambilla G; Fantini L; Ciatto S; Sardanelli F
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Feb; 83(2):e84-91. PubMed ID: 24369953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evidence-based target recall rates for screening mammography.
Schell MJ; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Qaqish BF; Barlow WE; Rosenberg RD; Smith-Bindman R
Radiology; 2007 Jun; 243(3):681-9. PubMed ID: 17517927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effect of radiologists' diagnostic work-up volume on interpretive performance.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Smith RA; Carney PA; Miglioretti DL; Monsees BS; Sickles EA; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Onega TL
Radiology; 2014 Nov; 273(2):351-64. PubMed ID: 24960110
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].
Marra V; Frigerio A; Di Virgilio MR; Menna S; Burke P
Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):342-6. PubMed ID: 10780212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States.
Buist DS; Anderson ML; Haneuse SJ; Sickles EA; Smith RA; Carney PA; Taplin SH; Rosenberg RD; Geller BM; Onega TL; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Yankaskas BC; Elmore JG; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2011 Apr; 259(1):72-84. PubMed ID: 21343539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program.
Hofvind S; Skaane P; Vitak B; Wang H; Thoresen S; Eriksen L; Bjørndal H; Braaten A; Bjurstam N
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):437-43. PubMed ID: 16244251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Reassessment of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography: a community-based study.
Yankaskas BC; Schell MJ; Bird RE; Desrochers DA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):535-41. PubMed ID: 11517043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
