93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19878494)
21. Economic evaluation of intensive chemotherapy with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for patients with high-risk early breast cancer in Japan.
Ishiguro H; Kondo M; Hoshi SL; Takada M; Nakamura S; Teramukai S; Yanagihara K; Toi M
Clin Ther; 2010 Feb; 32(2):311-26. PubMed ID: 20206789
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Health benefits and cost-effectiveness of a hybrid screening strategy for colorectal cancer.
Dinh T; Ladabaum U; Alperin P; Caldwell C; Smith R; Levin TR
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2013 Sep; 11(9):1158-66. PubMed ID: 23542330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Decision analysis of tamoxifen for the prevention of invasive breast cancer.
Grann VR; Sundararajan V; Jacobson JS; Whang W; Heitjan DF; Antman KH; Neugut AI
Cancer J; 2000; 6(3):169-78. PubMed ID: 10882333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.
Saadatmand S; Tilanus-Linthorst MM; Rutgers EJ; Hoogerbrugge N; Oosterwijk JC; Tollenaar RA; Hooning M; Loo CE; Obdeijn IM; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Sep; 105(17):1314-21. PubMed ID: 23940285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Docetaxel in combination with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as adjuvant treatment for early node-positive breast cancer: a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis.
Wolowacz SE; Cameron DA; Tate HC; Bagust A
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Feb; 26(6):925-33. PubMed ID: 18281666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Performance goals for an adjunct diagnostic test to reduce unnecessary biopsies after screening mammography: analysis of costs, benefits, and consequences.
Lee CI; Bensink ME; Berry K; Musa Z; Bodnar C; Dann R; Jarvik JG; Lehman CD; Ramsey SD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 Dec; 10(12):924-30. PubMed ID: 24295942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Telemammography for breast cancer screening: a cost-effective approach in Argentina.
Malek Pascha VA; Sun L; Gilardino R; Legood R
BMJ Health Care Inform; 2021 Jul; 28(1):. PubMed ID: 34281995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Cost- Effectiveness of Mammography Screening Program in a Resource-Limited Post-Soviet Country of Kazakhstan.
Salikhanov I; Crape B; Howie P
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Oct; 20(10):3153-3160. PubMed ID: 31653167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. [Cost-Effectiveness of the 21 Gene Assay in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer].
Fischer L; Arnold M; Kirsch F; Leidl R
Gesundheitswesen; 2016 Nov; 78(11):772-780. PubMed ID: 26107965
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. Cost-effectiveness of early detection of breast cancer in Catalonia (Spain).
Carles M; Vilaprinyo E; Cots F; Gregori A; Pla R; Román R; Sala M; Macià F; Castells X; Rue M
BMC Cancer; 2011 May; 11():192. PubMed ID: 21605383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Disability-Adjusted Life Years Averted Versus Quality-Adjusted Life Years Gained: A Model Analysis for Breast Cancer Screening.
Davidović M; Zielonke N; Lansdorp-Vogelaar I; Segnan N; de Koning HJ; Heijnsdijk EA
Value Health; 2021 Mar; 24(3):353-360. PubMed ID: 33641769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Is mammography for breast cancer screening cost-effective in both Western and asian countries?: results of a systematic review.
Yoo KB; Kwon JA; Cho E; Kang MH; Nam JM; Choi KS; Kim EK; Choi YJ; Park EC
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2013; 14(7):4141-9. PubMed ID: 23991967
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The national breast screening service: is it economically efficient?
Torgerson DJ; Gosden T
QJM; 1997 Jun; 90(6):423-5. PubMed ID: 9205681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. The cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the UK.
Hill H; Kearns B; Pashayan N; Roadevin C; Sasieni P; Offman J; Duffy S
Br J Cancer; 2023 Nov; 129(11):1801-1809. PubMed ID: 37848734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Return on Investment Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening and Downstaging in Egypt: Implications for Developing Countries.
Skrundevskiy AN; Omar OS; Kim J; Soliman AS; Korolchuk TA; Wilson FA
Value Health Reg Issues; 2018 Sep; 16():22-27. PubMed ID: 29626738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Modelling the likely effect of the increase of the upper age limit from 70 to 73 for breast screening in the UK National Programme.
Duffy SW; Sasieni P; Olsen AH; Cafferty FH
Stat Methods Med Res; 2010 Oct; 19(5):547-55. PubMed ID: 20130109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The influence of disease risk on the optimal time interval between screens for the early detection of cancer: a mathematical approach.
O'Mahony JF; van Rosmalen J; Mushkudiani NA; Goudsmit FW; Eijkemans MJ; Heijnsdijk EA; Steyerberg EW; Habbema JD
Med Decis Making; 2015 Feb; 35(2):183-95. PubMed ID: 24739535
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Estimating a cost-effectiveness threshold for the Spanish NHS.
Vallejo-Torres L; García-Lorenzo B; Serrano-Aguilar P
Health Econ; 2018 Apr; 27(4):746-761. PubMed ID: 29282798
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Economic evaluation of prostate cancer screening: a systematic review.
Lao C; Brown C; Rouse P; Edlin R; Lawrenson R
Future Oncol; 2015; 11(3):467-77. PubMed ID: 25675126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Distributional Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial.
Asaria M; Griffin S; Cookson R
Med Decis Making; 2016 Jan; 36(1):8-19. PubMed ID: 25908564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
