243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20606088)
1. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.
Boughey JC; Hartmann LC; Anderson SS; Degnim AC; Vierkant RA; Reynolds CA; Frost MH; Pankratz VS
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Aug; 28(22):3591-6. PubMed ID: 20606088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.
Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Buist DSM; Bowles EJA
JAMA Oncol; 2018 Sep; 4(9):e180174. PubMed ID: 29621362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The Tyrer-Cuzick Model Inaccurately Predicts Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in Women With LCIS.
Valero MG; Zabor EC; Park A; Gilbert E; Newman A; King TA; Pilewskie ML
Ann Surg Oncol; 2020 Mar; 27(3):736-740. PubMed ID: 31559544
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative.
Kurian AW; Hughes E; Simmons T; Bernhisel R; Probst B; Meek S; Caswell-Jin JL; John EM; Lanchbury JS; Slavin TP; Wagner S; Gutin A; Rohan TE; Shadyab AH; Manson JE; Lane D; Chlebowski RT; Stefanick ML
Cancer; 2021 Oct; 127(20):3742-3750. PubMed ID: 34228814
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China.
Zhang L; Jie Z; Xu S; Zhang L; Guo X
Med Sci Monit; 2018 Aug; 24():5528-5532. PubMed ID: 30089770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme.
Amir E; Evans DG; Shenton A; Lalloo F; Moran A; Boggis C; Wilson M; Howell A
J Med Genet; 2003 Nov; 40(11):807-14. PubMed ID: 14627668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry.
Pal Choudhury P; Brook MN; Hurson AN; Lee A; Mulder CV; Coulson P; Schoemaker MJ; Jones ME; Swerdlow AJ; Chatterjee N; Antoniou AC; Garcia-Closas M
Breast Cancer Res; 2021 Feb; 23(1):22. PubMed ID: 33588869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.
Brentnall AR; Harkness EF; Astley SM; Donnelly LS; Stavrinos P; Sampson S; Fox L; Sergeant JC; Harvie MN; Wilson M; Beetles U; Gadde S; Lim Y; Jain A; Bundred S; Barr N; Reece V; Howell A; Cuzick J; Evans DG
Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Dec; 17(1):147. PubMed ID: 26627479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reassessing risk models for atypical hyperplasia: age may not matter.
Mazzola E; Coopey SB; Griffin M; Polubriaginof F; Buckley JM; Parmigiani G; Garber JE; Smith BL; Gadd MA; Specht MC; Guidi A; Hughes KS
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Sep; 165(2):285-291. PubMed ID: 28589368
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population.
Stevanato KP; Pedroso RB; Iora P; Santos LD; Pelloso FC; Melo WA; Carvalho MDB; Pelloso SM
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Nov; 20(11):3407-3413. PubMed ID: 31759366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study.
Glynn RJ; Colditz GA; Tamimi RM; Chen WY; Hankinson SE; Willett WW; Rosner B
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2019 Jul; 28(7):1187-1194. PubMed ID: 31015199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of the accuracy of the Gail model in women with atypical hyperplasia.
Pankratz VS; Hartmann LC; Degnim AC; Vierkant RA; Ghosh K; Vachon CM; Frost MH; Maloney SD; Reynolds C; Boughey JC
J Clin Oncol; 2008 Nov; 26(33):5374-9. PubMed ID: 18854574
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Integrating Clinical and Polygenic Factors to Predict Breast Cancer Risk in Women Undergoing Genetic Testing.
Hughes E; Tshiaba P; Wagner S; Judkins T; Rosenthal E; Roa B; Gallagher S; Meek S; Dalton K; Hedegard W; Adami CA; Grear DF; Domchek SM; Garber J; Lancaster JM; Weitzel JN; Kurian AW; Lanchbury JS; Gutin A; Robson ME
JCO Precis Oncol; 2021; 5():. PubMed ID: 34036224
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast cancer risk prediction using Tyrer-Cuzick algorithm with an 18-SNPs polygenic risk score in a European population with below-average breast cancer incidence.
Oblak T; Škerl P; Narang BJ; Blagus R; Krajc M; Novaković S; Žgajnar J
Breast; 2023 Dec; 72():103590. PubMed ID: 37857130
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.
Niell BL; Augusto B; McIntyre M; Conley CC; Gerke T; Roetzheim R; Garcia J; Vadaparampil ST
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Jul; 217(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 33978450
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Variation in Breast Cancer Risk Model Estimates Among Women in Their 40s Seen in Primary Care.
Schonberg MA; Karamourtopoulos M; Pinheiro A; Davis RB; Sternberg SB; Mehta TS; Gilliam EA; Tung NM
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2022 Apr; 31(4):495-502. PubMed ID: 35073183
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.
McCarthy AM; Guan Z; Welch M; Griffin ME; Sippo DA; Deng Z; Coopey SB; Acar A; Semine A; Parmigiani G; Braun D; Hughes KS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2020 May; 112(5):489-497. PubMed ID: 31556450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk assessment models in women screened in a primary care setting with the FHS-7 questionnaire.
Vianna FSL; Giacomazzi J; Oliveira Netto CB; Nunes LN; Caleffi M; Ashton-Prolla P; Camey SA
Genet Mol Biol; 2019; 42(1 suppl 1):232-237. PubMed ID: 31170278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Comprehensive Breast Cancer Risk Assessment for
Gallagher S; Hughes E; Kurian AW; Domchek SM; Garber J; Probst B; Morris B; Tshiaba P; Meek S; Rosenthal E; Roa B; Slavin TP; Wagner S; Weitzel J; Gutin A; Lanchbury JS; Robson M
JCO Precis Oncol; 2021 Jun; 5():. PubMed ID: 34322652
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program.
Wright SJ; Eden M; Ruane H; Byers H; Evans DG; Harvie M; Howell SJ; Howell A; French D; Payne K
MDM Policy Pract; 2023; 8(1):23814683231171363. PubMed ID: 37152662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
