These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

410 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22547470)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
    Trentham-Dietz A; Chapman CH; Jayasekera J; Lowry KP; Heckman-Stoddard BM; Hampton JM; Caswell-Jin JL; Gangnon RE; Lu Y; Huang H; Stein S; Sun L; Gil Quessep EJ; Yang Y; Lu Y; Song J; Muñoz DF; Li Y; Kurian AW; Kerlikowske K; O'Meara ES; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Feuer EJ; Berry D; Plevritis SK; Huang X; de Koning HJ; van Ravesteyn NT; Lee SJ; Alagoz O; Schechter CB; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS
    JAMA; 2024 Jun; 331(22):1947-1960. PubMed ID: 38687505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 7. Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography, Digital Breast Tomosynthesis, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging by Breast Density.
    Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Su YR; Lee CI; Abraham L; Alagoz O; de Koning HJ; Hampton JM; Henderson L; Lowry KP; Mandelblatt JS; Onega T; Schechter CB; Sprague BL; Stein S; Trentham-Dietz A; van Ravesteyn NT; Wernli KJ; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson ANA
    JAMA Intern Med; 2024 Oct; 184(10):1222-1231. PubMed ID: 39186304
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. 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]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. Identifying Equitable Screening Mammography Strategies for Black Women in the United States Using Simulation Modeling.
    Chapman CH; Schechter CB; Cadham CJ; Trentham-Dietz A; Gangnon RE; Jagsi R; Mandelblatt JS
    Ann Intern Med; 2021 Dec; 174(12):1637-1646. PubMed ID: 34662151
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening for Women With Down Syndrome: a Collaborative Modeling Study.
    Alagoz O; Hajjar A; Chootipongchaivat S; van Ravesteyn NT; Yeh JM; Ergun MA; de Koning HJ; Chicoine B; Martin B
    J Gen Intern Med; 2019 Nov; 34(11):2374-2381. PubMed ID: 31385214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Risk stratification in breast cancer screening: Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit ratios for low-risk and high-risk women.
    Sankatsing VDV; van Ravesteyn NT; Heijnsdijk EAM; Broeders MJM; de Koning HJ
    Int J Cancer; 2020 Dec; 147(11):3059-3067. PubMed ID: 32484237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Quantifying performance thresholds for recommending screening mammography: a revealed preference analysis of USPSTF guidelines.
    Narayan AK; Elkin EB; Lehman CD; Morris EA
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Nov; 172(2):463-468. PubMed ID: 30128821
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
    Myers ER; Moorman P; Gierisch JM; Havrilesky LJ; Grimm LJ; Ghate S; Davidson B; Mongtomery RC; Crowley MJ; McCrory DC; Kendrick A; Sanders GD
    JAMA; 2015 Oct; 314(15):1615-34. PubMed ID: 26501537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Trade-Offs Between Harms and Benefits of Different Breast Cancer Screening Intervals Among Low-Risk Women.
    van Ravesteyn NT; Schechter CB; Hampton JM; Alagoz O; van den Broek JJ; Kerlikowske K; Mandelblatt JS; Miglioretti DL; Sprague BL; Stout NK; de Koning HJ; Trentham-Dietz A; Tosteson ANA;
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2021 Aug; 113(8):1017-1026. PubMed ID: 33515225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 21.