BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

153 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24066130)

  • 1. Mammographic assessment of a geographically defined population at a mastology referral hospital in São Paulo Brazil.
    Caetano S; Junior JM; Finguerman F; Goldman SM; Szejnfeld J
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(9):e74270. PubMed ID: 24066130
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mammography in asymptomatic women aged 40-49 years.
    Silva FX; Katz L; Souza AS; Amorim MM
    Rev Saude Publica; 2014 Dec; 48(6):931-9. PubMed ID: 26039396
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.
    Zonderland HM; Pope TL; Nieborg AJ
    Eur Radiol; 2004 Oct; 14(10):1743-50. PubMed ID: 15243715
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
    Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
    Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.
    Hooley RJ; Greenberg KL; Stackhouse RM; Geisel JL; Butler RS; Philpotts LE
    Radiology; 2012 Oct; 265(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 22723501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
    Medical Advisory Secretariat
    Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2007; 7(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 23074501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Costs of mammogram campaigns in the Regional Health Division of Marília, São Paulo State, Brazil, 2005-2006].
    Marconato RR; Soárez PC; Ciconelli RM
    Cad Saude Publica; 2011 Aug; 27(8):1529-36. PubMed ID: 21877001
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography.
    Honig EL; Mullen LA; Amir T; Alvin MD; Jones MK; Ambinder EB; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
    Acad Radiol; 2019 Nov; 26(11):1505-1512. PubMed ID: 30772138
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Analysis for the breast cancer screening among urban populations in China, 2012-2013].
    Mi ZH; Ren JS; Zhang HZ; Li J; Wang Y; Fang Y; Shi JF; Zhang K; Zhao JB; Dai M
    Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Oct; 50(10):887-892. PubMed ID: 27686767
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Outcomes of unconventional utilization of BI-RADS category 3 assessment at opportunistic screening.
    Altas H; Tureli D; Cengic I; Kucukkaya F; Aribal E; Kaya H
    Acta Radiol; 2016 Nov; 57(11):1304-1309. PubMed ID: 26019241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Longitudinal measurement of clinical mammographic breast density to improve estimation of breast cancer risk.
    Kerlikowske K; Ichikawa L; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Vacek PM; Smith-Bindman R; Yankaskas B; Carney PA; Ballard-Barbash R;
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Mar; 99(5):386-95. PubMed ID: 17341730
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
    Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
    Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Factors associated with imaging and procedural events used to detect breast cancer after screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Yabroff KR; Sickles EA; Buist DS; Kasales CJ; Geller BM; Rosenberg RD; Dignan MB; Weaver DL; Kerlikowske K;
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):385-92. PubMed ID: 17242246
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. [Analysis of the results of mammography screening in Dubrovnik-Neretva County in the 2006-2009 period].
    Dzono-Boban A; Mratović MC; Masanović M
    Acta Med Croatica; 2010 Dec; 64(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 21692270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mammographic screening in women at increased risk of breast cancer after treatment of Hodgkin's disease.
    Kwong A; Hancock SL; Bloom JR; Pal S; Birdwell RL; Mariscal C; Ikeda DM
    Breast J; 2008; 14(1):39-48. PubMed ID: 18186864
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions.
    Varas X; Leborgne JH; Leborgne F; Mezzera J; Jaumandreu S; Leborgne F
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2002 Sep; 179(3):691-5. PubMed ID: 12185047
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Comprehensive diagnostic program for medically underserved women with abnormal breast screening evaluations in an urban population.
    Palmieri FM; DePeri ER; Mincey BA; Smith JA; Wen LK; Chewar DM; Abaya R; Colon-Otero G; Perez EA
    Mayo Clin Proc; 2009 Apr; 84(4):317-22. PubMed ID: 19339648
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.