464 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21947591)
1. Potential impact of USPSTF recommendations on early diagnosis of breast cancer.
Aragon R; Morgan J; Wong JH; Lum S
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct; 18(11):3137-42. PubMed ID: 21947591
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Mammography in 40-year-old women: what difference does it make? The potential impact of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) mammography guidelines.
Shen N; Hammonds LS; Madsen D; Dale P
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct; 18(11):3066-71. PubMed ID: 21863364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored.
Hendrick RE; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):W112-6. PubMed ID: 21257850
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Incidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ in a screening program by age: should older women continue screening?
Erbas B; Amos A; Fletcher A; Kavanagh AM; Gertig DM
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2004 Oct; 13(10):1569-73. PubMed ID: 15466971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Ductal carcinoma in situ: trends in geographic, temporal, and demographic patterns of care and survival.
Joslyn SA
Breast J; 2006; 12(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 16409583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Trends in area-socioeconomic and race-ethnic disparities in breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, screening, mortality, and survival among women ages 50 years and over (1987-2005).
Harper S; Lynch J; Meersman SC; Breen N; Davis WW; Reichman MC
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2009 Jan; 18(1):121-31. PubMed ID: 19124489
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Triple-negative breast cancer in West Virginia.
Abraham J; Flanagan M; Hazard H; Jubelirer S; Tirona MT; Vona-Davis L
W V Med J; 2009 Oct; 105 Spec No():54-9. PubMed ID: 19999267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Socioeconomic inequalities in attending the mass screening for breast cancer in the south of the Netherlands--associations with stage at diagnosis and survival.
Aarts MJ; Voogd AC; Duijm LE; Coebergh JW; Louwman WJ
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2011 Jul; 128(2):517-25. PubMed ID: 21290176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Differences in breast cancer hormone receptor status and histology by race and ethnicity among women 50 years of age and older.
Li CI; Malone KE; Daling JR
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2002 Jul; 11(7):601-7. PubMed ID: 12101106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Results of intermediate measures from a population-based, randomized trial of mammographic screening prevalence and detection of breast carcinoma among Asian women: the Singapore Breast Screening Project.
Ng EH; Ng FC; Tan PH; Low SC; Chiang G; Tan KP; Seow A; Emmanuel S; Tan CH; Ho GH; Ng LT; Wilde CC
Cancer; 1998 Apr; 82(8):1521-8. PubMed ID: 9554530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Socioeconomic disparities and breast cancer hormone receptor status.
Andaya AA; Enewold L; Horner MJ; Jatoi I; Shriver CD; Zhu K
Cancer Causes Control; 2012 Jun; 23(6):951-8. PubMed ID: 22527173
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Hormone receptor status and survival in a population-based cohort of patients with breast carcinoma.
Grann VR; Troxel AB; Zojwalla NJ; Jacobson JS; Hershman D; Neugut AI
Cancer; 2005 Jun; 103(11):2241-51. PubMed ID: 15844176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001.
Li CI; Malone KE; Saltzman BS; Daling JR
Cancer; 2006 May; 106(10):2104-12. PubMed ID: 16604564
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old.
Curpen BN; Sickles EA; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB; Frankel SD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 May; 164(5):1099-103. PubMed ID: 7717212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
US Preventive Services Task Force
Ann Intern Med; 2009 Nov; 151(10):716-26, W-236. PubMed ID: 19920272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Balancing sensitivity and specificity: sixteen year's of experience from the mammography screening programme in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Utzon-Frank N; Vejborg I; von Euler-Chelpin M; Lynge E
Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 35(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 21239242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammographic screening for breast cancer: 2010.
Margolies L
Mt Sinai J Med; 2010; 77(4):398-404. PubMed ID: 20687187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Late-stage breast cancer among women with recent negative screening mammography: do clinical encounters offer opportunity for earlier detection?
Mouchawar J; Taplin S; Ichikawa L; Barlow WE; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Gilbert J; Manos MM; Ulcickas Yood M
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2005; (35):39-46. PubMed ID: 16287884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammographically detected, clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation.
Solin LJ; McCormick B; Recht A; Haffty BG; Taylor ME; Kuske RR; Bornstein BA; McNeese M; Schultz DJ; Fowble BL; Barrett W; Yeh IT; Kurtz JM; Amalric R; Fourquet A
Cancer J Sci Am; 1996; 2(3):158-65. PubMed ID: 9166516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Trends in breast cancer survival in Germany from 1976 to 2008--a period analysis by age and stage.
Holleczek B; Arndt V; Stegmaier C; Brenner H
Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 35(5):399-406. PubMed ID: 21470930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
