265 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19371308)
1. Screen-detected invasive cervical carcinoma and its clinical significance during the introduction of organized screening.
Herbert A; Anshu ; Gregory M; Gupta SS; Singh N
BJOG; 2009 May; 116(6):854-9. PubMed ID: 19371308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Investigation of the effect of occult invasive cancer on progress towards successful cervical screening.
Herbert A; Bryant TN; Campbell MJ; Smith J
J Med Screen; 1998; 5(2):92-8. PubMed ID: 9718528
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Invasive cervical cancer audit: a relative increase in interval cancers while coverage increased and incidence declined.
Herbert A; Anshu ; Gregory M; Gupta SS; Singh N
BJOG; 2009 May; 116(6):845-53. PubMed ID: 19432575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Differences in screening history, tumour characteristics and survival between women with screen-detected versus not screen-detected cervical cancer in the east of The Netherlands, 1992-2001.
van der Aa MA; Schutter EM; Looijen-Salamon M; Martens JE; Siesling S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Aug; 139(2):204-9. PubMed ID: 18093720
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Invasive cervical cancer in Southampton and South West Hampshire: effect of introducing a comprehensive screening programme.
Herbert A; Breen C; Bryant TN; Hitchcock A; Macdonald H; Millward-Sadler GH; Smith J
J Med Screen; 1996; 3(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 8861047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Cervical cancer incidence and screening: status report on women in the United States.
Martin LM; Parker SL; Wingo PA; Heath CW
Cancer Pract; 1996; 4(3):130-4. PubMed ID: 8826141
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Comparison of the clinical features of uterine cervical cancers detected by mass screening and voluntary visit].
Yoh S; Hasuo Y; Tanaka H; Yakushizi M; Sakurai T
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho; 1988 Jun; 15(6):1949-57. PubMed ID: 3382243
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Review of the screening history of Alberta women with invasive cervical cancer.
Stuart GC; McGregor SE; Duggan MA; Nation JG
CMAJ; 1997 Sep; 157(5):513-9. PubMed ID: 9294389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Nationwide breast cancer screening fully accomplished; results from the implementation phase 1990-1997. National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening].
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 2000 Jun; 144(23):1124-9. PubMed ID: 10876708
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. The clinical and pathological differences in prevalent round screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer.
Sweeney KJ; Kell MR; Aziz NA; Prunty N; Holloway P; Kennedy M; Flanagan F; Kerin MJ
Ir Med J; 2007 Sep; 100(8):550-2. PubMed ID: 17955686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Pathways to diagnosis of cervical cancer: screening history, delay in follow up, and smear reading.
Priest P; Sadler L; Peters J; Crengle S; Bethwaite P; Medley G; Jackson R
BJOG; 2007 Apr; 114(4):398-407. PubMed ID: 17166215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.
Andrae B; Kemetli L; Sparén P; Silfverdal L; Strander B; Ryd W; Dillner J; Törnberg S
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 May; 100(9):622-9. PubMed ID: 18445828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Modelling the impact of detecting and treating ductal carcinoma in situ in a breast screening programme.
McCann J; Treasure P; Duffy S
J Med Screen; 2004; 11(3):117-25. PubMed ID: 15333269
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Clinicopathological characteristics of cervical cancer between 2003 and 2005, after the introduction of a national cancer screening program in Slovenia.
Takac I; Ursic-Vrscaj M; Repse-Fokter A; Kodric T; Rakar S; Mozina A; Smrkolj S; Primic-Zakelj M; Strzinar V; Vakselj A; Arko D
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2008 Sep; 140(1):82-9. PubMed ID: 18400358
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Basal phenotype: a powerful prognostic factor in small screen-detected invasive breast cancer with long-term follow-up.
Evans AJ; Rakha EA; Pinder SE; Green AR; Paish C; Ellis IO
J Med Screen; 2007; 14(4):210-4. PubMed ID: 18078567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Factors associated with tumour stage at presentation in invasive cervical cancer.
Ndlovu N; Kambarami R
Cent Afr J Med; 2003; 49(9-10):107-11. PubMed ID: 15298465
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Limited education as a risk factor in cervical cancer.
Corral F; Cueva P; Yépez J; Montes E
Bull Pan Am Health Organ; 1996 Dec; 30(4):322-9. PubMed ID: 9041743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The use of cervical screening history data to interpret cervical cancer incidence trends.
Clare J; Edwards D; Bagnall H; Pearmain P; Lawrence G
J Public Health (Oxf); 2008 Jun; 30(2):171-7. PubMed ID: 18296455
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Local impact of the English arm of the UK Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot study.
Goodyear SJ; Stallard N; Gaunt A; Parker R; Williams N; Wong L
Br J Surg; 2008 Sep; 95(9):1172-9. PubMed ID: 18690636
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Incidence of cervical carcinoma in a high-risk, non-screened area results of a retrospective analysis on the Dutch Caribbean Antilles from 1983 to 1998.
Bax A; Voigt RR; Coronel CC; Putter H; de Bie Leuving Tjeenk RM; van Marwijk HW
West Indian Med J; 2004 Jun; 53(3):150-4. PubMed ID: 15352742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
