BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22745215)

  • 1. Impact of transition from analog screening mammography to digital screening mammography on screening outcome in The Netherlands: a population-based study.
    Nederend J; Duijm LEM; Louwman MWJ; Groenewoud JH; Donkers-van Rossum AB; Voogd AC
    Ann Oncol; 2012 Dec; 23(12):3098-3103. PubMed ID: 22745215
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Screening outcome and surgical treatment during and after the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands.
    Weber RJ; Nederend J; Voogd AC; Strobbe LJ; Duijm LE
    Int J Cancer; 2015 Jul; 137(1):135-43. PubMed ID: 25418512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.
    Nederend J; Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Coebergh JW; Roumen RM; Lohle PN; Roukema JA; Rutten MJ; van Steenbergen LN; Ernst MF; Jansen FH; Plaisier ML; Hooijen MJ; Voogd AC
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jan; 50(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 24275518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Screening outcome in women repeatedly recalled for the same mammographic abnormality before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.
    van Bommel R; Voogd AC; Louwman MW; Strobbe LJ; Venderink D; Duijm LE
    Eur Radiol; 2017 Feb; 27(2):553-561. PubMed ID: 27180183
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Digital vs screen-film mammography in population-based breast cancer screening: performance indicators and tumour characteristics of screen-detected and interval cancers.
    de Munck L; de Bock GH; Otter R; Reiding D; Broeders MJ; Willemse PH; Siesling S
    Br J Cancer; 2016 Aug; 115(5):517-24. PubMed ID: 27490807
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.
    Hofvind S; Skaane P; Elmore JG; Sebuødegård S; Hoff SR; Lee CI
    Radiology; 2014 Jul; 272(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 24689858
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Interval breast cancer characteristics before, during and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital screening mammography.
    van Bommel RMG; Weber R; Voogd AC; Nederend J; Louwman MWJ; Venderink D; Strobbe LJA; Rutten MJC; Plaisier ML; Lohle PN; Hooijen MJH; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    BMC Cancer; 2017 May; 17(1):315. PubMed ID: 28476109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Follow-up and final results of the Oslo I Study comparing screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading.
    Skaane P; Skjennald A; Young K; Egge E; Jebsen I; Sager EM; Scheel B; Søvik E; Ertzaas AK; Hofvind S; Abdelnoor M
    Acta Radiol; 2005 Nov; 46(7):679-89. PubMed ID: 16372686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Trends in incidence and tumour grade in screen-detected ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.
    Luiten JD; Voogd AC; Luiten EJT; Duijm LEM
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Nov; 166(1):307-314. PubMed ID: 28748346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit.
    Perry NM; Patani N; Milner SE; Pinker K; Mokbel K; Allgood PC; Duffy SW
    Eur Radiol; 2011 Apr; 21(4):676-82. PubMed ID: 20886340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.
    Skaane P; Skjennald A
    Radiology; 2004 Jul; 232(1):197-204. PubMed ID: 15155893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study.
    Feeley L; Kiernan D; Mooney T; Flanagan F; Hargaden G; Kell M; Stokes M; Kennedy M
    J Clin Pathol; 2011 Mar; 64(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 21177749
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.
    Skaane P; Hofvind S; Skjennald A
    Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):708-17. PubMed ID: 17709826
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program.
    Luiten JD; Voogd AC; Luiten EJT; Broeders MJM; Roes KCB; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
    Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):528-537. PubMed ID: 31990268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Full-field digital mammography compared to screen film mammography in the prevalent round of a population-based screening programme: the Vestfold County Study.
    Vigeland E; Klaasen H; Klingen TA; Hofvind S; Skaane P
    Eur Radiol; 2008 Jan; 18(1):183-91. PubMed ID: 17680246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparison of full-field digital mammography with screen-film mammography for cancer detection: results of 4,945 paired examinations.
    Lewin JM; Hendrick RE; D'Orsi CJ; Isaacs PK; Moss LJ; Karellas A; Sisney GA; Kuni CC; Cutter GR
    Radiology; 2001 Mar; 218(3):873-80. PubMed ID: 11230669
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparing Tumor Characteristics and Rates of Breast Cancers Detected by Screening Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full-Field Digital Mammography.
    Dang PA; Wang A; Senapati GM; Ip IK; Lacson R; Khorasani R; Giess CS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2020 Mar; 214(3):701-706. PubMed ID: 31613659
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast cancer screening results 5 years after introduction of digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
    Karssemeijer N; Bluekens AM; Beijerinck D; Deurenberg JJ; Beekman M; Visser R; van Engen R; Bartels-Kortland A; Broeders MJ
    Radiology; 2009 Nov; 253(2):353-8. PubMed ID: 19703851
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
    van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
    Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography in Japanese population-based screening.
    Yamada T; Saito M; Ishibashi T; Tsuboi M; Matsuhashi T; Sato A; Saito H; Takahashi S; Onuki K; Ouchi N
    Radiat Med; 2004; 22(6):408-12. PubMed ID: 15648457
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.