191 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23169791)
1. A review of interval breast cancers diagnosed among participants of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program.
Payne JI; Caines JS; Gallant J; Foley TJ
Radiology; 2013 Jan; 266(1):96-103. PubMed ID: 23169791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Interval breast cancers: absolute and proportional incidence and blinded review in a community mammographic screening program.
Carbonaro LA; Azzarone A; Paskeh BB; Brambilla G; Brunelli S; Calori A; Caumo F; Malerba P; Menicagli L; Sconfienza LM; Vadalà G; Brambilla G; Fantini L; Ciatto S; Sardanelli F
Eur J Radiol; 2014 Feb; 83(2):e84-91. PubMed ID: 24369953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Missed and true interval and screen-detected breast cancers in a population based screening program.
Hoff SR; Samset JH; Abrahamsen AL; Vigeland E; Klepp O; Hofvind S
Acad Radiol; 2011 Apr; 18(4):454-60. PubMed ID: 21216632
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A true screening environment for review of interval breast cancers: pilot study to reduce bias.
Gordon PB; Borugian MJ; Warren Burhenne LJ
Radiology; 2007 Nov; 245(2):411-5. PubMed ID: 17848684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Additional double reading of screening mammograms by radiologic technologists: impact on screening performance parameters.
Duijm LE; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Aug; 99(15):1162-70. PubMed ID: 17652282
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification.
Burhenne HJ; Burhenne LW; Goldberg F; Hislop TG; Worth AJ; Rebbeck PM; Kan L
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 May; 162(5):1067-71; discussion 1072-5. PubMed ID: 8165983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience.
Destounis SV; DiNitto P; Logan-Young W; Bonaccio E; Zuley ML; Willison KM
Radiology; 2004 Aug; 232(2):578-84. PubMed ID: 15229350
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reassessment of breast cancers missed during routine screening mammography: a community-based study.
Yankaskas BC; Schell MJ; Bird RE; Desrochers DA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):535-41. PubMed ID: 11517043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Influence of review design on percentages of missed interval breast cancers: retrospective study of interval cancers in a population-based screening program.
Hofvind S; Skaane P; Vitak B; Wang H; Thoresen S; Eriksen L; Bjørndal H; Braaten A; Bjurstam N
Radiology; 2005 Nov; 237(2):437-43. PubMed ID: 16244251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Ten years of breast screening in the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program, 1991-2001. experience: use of an adaptable stereotactic device in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities.
Caines JS; Schaller GH; Iles SE; Woods ER; Barnes PJ; Johnson AJ; Jones GR; Borgaonkar JN; Rowe JA; Topp TJ; Porter GA
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2005 Apr; 56(2):82-93. PubMed ID: 15957275
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Breast cancer: missed interval and screening-detected cancer at full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography-- results from a retrospective review.
Hoff SR; Abrahamsen AL; Samset JH; Vigeland E; Klepp O; Hofvind S
Radiology; 2012 Aug; 264(2):378-86. PubMed ID: 22700555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The burden of false-positive results in analog and digital screening mammography: experience of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program.
Payne JI; Martin T; Caines JS; Duggan R
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2014 Nov; 65(4):315-20. PubMed ID: 25134453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [Breast carcinoma diagnosed in mammographic screening incidentally. Research on the radiologic signs in prior mammograms].
Marra V; Frigerio A; Di Virgilio MR; Menna S; Burke P
Radiol Med; 1999 Nov; 98(5):342-6. PubMed ID: 10780212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Breast cancer detection rate: designing imaging trials to demonstrate improvements.
Jiang Y; Miglioretti DL; Metz CE; Schmidt RA
Radiology; 2007 May; 243(2):360-7. PubMed ID: 17456866
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.
Hofvind S; Sagstad S; Sebuødegård S; Chen Y; Roman M; Lee CI
Radiology; 2018 Apr; 287(1):58-67. PubMed ID: 29239711
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience.
Shaw CM; Flanagan FL; Fenlon HM; McNicholas MM
Radiology; 2009 Feb; 250(2):354-62. PubMed ID: 19188311
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mammography screening for breast cancer in Copenhagen April 1991-March 1997. Mammography Screening Evaluation Group.
Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 1998; 83():1-44. PubMed ID: 9850674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Minority report - false negative breast assessment in women recalled for suspicious screening mammography: imaging and pathological features, and associated delay in diagnosis.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Ambrogetti D; Bonardi R; Collini G; Del Turco MR
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2007 Sep; 105(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 17115112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
