183 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19188311)
1. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.
Shaw CM; Flanagan FL; Fenlon HM; McNicholas MM
Radiology; 2009 Feb; 250(2):354-62. PubMed ID: 19188311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. Consensus Review of Discordant Imaging Findings after the Introduction of Digital Screening Mammography: Irish National Breast Cancer Screening Program Experience.
Healy NA; O'Brien A; Knox M; Hargaden G; Smith C; Fenlon H; McNicholas M; Phelan N; Flanagan F
Radiology; 2020 Apr; 295(1):35-41. PubMed ID: 32043946
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Screening-detected breast cancers: discordant independent double reading in a population-based screening program.
Hofvind S; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Skaane P
Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):652-60. PubMed ID: 19789229
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. Arbitration of discrepant BI-RADS 0 recalls by a third reader at screening mammography lowers recall rate but not the cancer detection rate and sensitivity at blinded and non-blinded double reading.
Klompenhouwer EG; Weber RJ; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; Broeders MJ; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast; 2015 Oct; 24(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 26117723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Optimal screening mammography reading volumes; evidence from real life in the East Midlands region of the NHS Breast Screening Programme.
Cornford E; Reed J; Murphy A; Bennett R; Evans A
Clin Radiol; 2011 Feb; 66(2):103-7. PubMed ID: 21216324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.
Skaane P; Hofvind S; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):708-17. PubMed ID: 17709826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.
Skaane P; Bandos AI; Gullien R; Eben EB; Ekseth U; Haakenaasen U; Izadi M; Jebsen IN; Jahr G; Krager M; Niklason LT; Hofvind S; Gur D
Radiology; 2013 Apr; 267(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 23297332
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Observer variability in cancer detection during routine repeat (incident) mammographic screening in a study of two versus one view mammography.
Blanks RG; Wallis MG; Given-Wilson RM
J Med Screen; 1999; 6(3):152-8. PubMed ID: 10572847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.
Thurfjell E
Acta Radiol Suppl; 1995; 395():1-22. PubMed ID: 7839866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Minority report - false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Ambrogetti D; Bonardi R; Collini G; Del Turco MR
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Sep; 105(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 17115112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Computer-aided detection in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Programme: prospective study.
Khoo LA; Taylor P; Given-Wilson RM
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):444-9. PubMed ID: 16244252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
