844 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21727289)
1. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.
Schousboe JT; Kerlikowske K; Loh A; Cummings SR
Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 21727289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.
Sprague BL; Stout NK; Schechter C; van Ravesteyn NT; Cevik M; Alagoz O; Lee CI; van den Broek JJ; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS; de Koning HJ; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD; Tosteson AN
Ann Intern Med; 2015 Feb; 162(3):157-66. PubMed ID: 25486550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes.
Trentham-Dietz A; Kerlikowske K; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Schechter CB; Ergun MA; van den Broek JJ; Alagoz O; Sprague BL; van Ravesteyn NT; Near AM; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Chandler Y; de Koning HJ; Mandelblatt JS; Tosteson AN;
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Nov; 165(10):700-712. PubMed ID: 27548583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.
Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Kerlikowske K; Alagoz O; Berry D; Buist DS; Cevik M; Chisholm G; de Koning HJ; Huang H; Hubbard RA; Miglioretti DL; Munsell MF; Trentham-Dietz A; van Ravesteyn NT; Tosteson AN; Mandelblatt JS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Jun; 106(6):dju092. PubMed ID: 24872543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Shih YT; Dong W; Xu Y; Etzioni R; Shen Y
Ann Intern Med; 2021 May; 174(5):602-612. PubMed ID: 33556275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.
Nelson HD; O'Meara ES; Kerlikowske K; Balch S; Miglioretti D
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):226-35. PubMed ID: 26756902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography Beyond Age 75 Years : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Schousboe JT; Sprague BL; Abraham L; O'Meara ES; Onega T; Advani S; Henderson LM; Wernli KJ; Zhang D; Miglioretti DL; Braithwaite D; Kerlikowske K
Ann Intern Med; 2022 Jan; 175(1):11-19. PubMed ID: 34807717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.
Mandelblatt JS; Stout NK; Schechter CB; van den Broek JJ; Miglioretti DL; Krapcho M; Trentham-Dietz A; Munoz D; Lee SJ; Berry DA; van Ravesteyn NT; Alagoz O; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Near AM; Hoeffken A; Chang Y; Heijnsdijk EA; Chisholm G; Huang X; Huang H; Ergun MA; Gangnon R; Sprague BL; Plevritis S; Feuer E; de Koning HJ; Cronin KA
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):215-25. PubMed ID: 26756606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study.
Yeh JM; Lowry KP; Schechter CB; Diller LR; Alagoz O; Armstrong GT; Hampton JM; Leisenring W; Liu Q; Mandelblatt JS; Miglioretti DL; Moskowitz CS; Oeffinger KC; Trentham-Dietz A; Stout NK
Ann Intern Med; 2020 Sep; 173(5):331-341. PubMed ID: 32628531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.
Tosteson AN; Stout NK; Fryback DG; Acharyya S; Herman BA; Hannah LG; Pisano ED;
Ann Intern Med; 2008 Jan; 148(1):1-10. PubMed ID: 18166758
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening With Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Women at Familial Risk.
Geuzinge HA; Obdeijn IM; Rutgers EJT; Saadatmand S; Mann RM; Oosterwijk JC; Tollenaar RAEM; de Roy van Zuidewijn DBW; Lobbes MBI; van 't Riet M; Hooning MJ; Ausems MGEM; Loo CE; Wesseling J; Luiten EJT; Zonderland HM; Verhoef C; Heijnsdijk EAM; Tilanus-Linthorst MMA; de Koning HJ;
JAMA Oncol; 2020 Sep; 6(9):1381-1389. PubMed ID: 32729887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.
Cott Chubiz JE; Lee JM; Gilmore ME; Kong CY; Lowry KP; Halpern EF; McMahon PM; Ryan PD; Gazelle GS
Cancer; 2013 Mar; 119(6):1266-76. PubMed ID: 23184400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.
van Ravesteyn NT; Miglioretti DL; Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Buist DS; Huang H; Heijnsdijk EA; Trentham-Dietz A; Alagoz O; Near AM; Kerlikowske K; Nelson HD; Mandelblatt JS; de Koning HJ
Ann Intern Med; 2012 May; 156(9):609-17. PubMed ID: 22547470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density.
Pataky R; Ismail Z; Coldman AJ; Elwood M; Gelmon K; Hedden L; Hislop G; Kan L; McCoy B; Olivotto IA; Peacock S
J Med Screen; 2014 Dec; 21(4):180-8. PubMed ID: 25186116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.
Wang J; Phi XA; Greuter MJW; Daszczuk AM; Feenstra TL; Pijnappel RM; Vermeulen KM; Buls N; Houssami N; Lu W; de Bock GH
Eur Radiol; 2020 Oct; 30(10):5437-5445. PubMed ID: 32382844
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.
Mandelblatt JS; Cronin KA; Bailey S; Berry DA; de Koning HJ; Draisma G; Huang H; Lee SJ; Munsell M; Plevritis SK; Ravdin P; Schechter CB; Sigal B; Stoto MA; Stout NK; van Ravesteyn NT; Venier J; Zelen M; Feuer EJ;
Ann Intern Med; 2009 Nov; 151(10):738-47. PubMed ID: 19920274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.
Mango VL; Goel A; Mema E; Kwak E; Ha R
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2019 Jun; 49(7):e216-e221. PubMed ID: 30632645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.
Miglioretti DL; Lange J; van den Broek JJ; Lee CI; van Ravesteyn NT; Ritley D; Kerlikowske K; Fenton JJ; Melnikow J; de Koning HJ; Hubbard RA
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):205-14. PubMed ID: 26756460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.
Stout NK; Rosenberg MA; Trentham-Dietz A; Smith MA; Robinson SM; Fryback DG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Jun; 98(11):774-82. PubMed ID: 16757702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
