149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24084766)
1. Quantifying the natural history of breast cancer.
Tan KH; Simonella L; Wee HL; Roellin A; Lim YW; Lim WY; Chia KS; Hartman M; Cook AR
Br J Cancer; 2013 Oct; 109(8):2035-43. PubMed ID: 24084766
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast].
Barth A; Köchli OR; Brenner RJ; Giuliano E; Castiglione M
Schweiz Med Wochenschr; 1995 Jan; 125(4):103-12. PubMed ID: 7878398
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Digital Mammography Screening: Does Age Influence the Detection Rates of Low-, Intermediate-, and High-Grade Ductal Carcinoma in Situ?
Weigel S; Hense HW; Heidrich J; Berkemeyer S; Heindel W; Heidinger O
Radiology; 2016 Mar; 278(3):707-13. PubMed ID: 26505802
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Estimating the natural progression of non-invasive ductal carcinoma in situ breast cancer lesions using screening data.
Weedon-Fekjær H; Li X; Lee S
J Med Screen; 2021 Sep; 28(3):302-310. PubMed ID: 32854582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening.
Yen MF; Tabár L; Vitak B; Smith RA; Chen HH; Duffy SW
Eur J Cancer; 2003 Aug; 39(12):1746-54. PubMed ID: 12888370
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Natural history of breast cancer: a systematic review of worldwide randomized controlled trials of mammography screening].
Yue XP; Shi JF; Mao AY; Wang L; Ma HM; Chen LL; Zhu J; Cheng X; Dai M
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2017 Feb; 39(2):154-160. PubMed ID: 28219215
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Tumour development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression.
Tabar L; Fagerberg G; Chen HH; Duffy SW; Gad A
Int J Cancer; 1996 May; 66(4):413-9. PubMed ID: 8635853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Incidence of breast cancer and estimates of overdiagnosis after the initiation of a population-based mammography screening program.
Coldman A; Phillips N
CMAJ; 2013 Jul; 185(10):E492-8. PubMed ID: 23754101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. When is core breast biopsy or fine-needle aspiration not enough?
Berg WA
Radiology; 1996 Feb; 198(2):313-5. PubMed ID: 8596822
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study.
Ciatto S; Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Montemezzi S; Macaskill P
Lancet Oncol; 2013 Jun; 14(7):583-9. PubMed ID: 23623721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The contribution of mammography screening to breast cancer incidence trends in the United States: an updated age-period-cohort model.
Gangnon RE; Sprague BL; Stout NK; Alagoz O; Weedon-Fekjær H; Holford TR; Trentham-Dietz A
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2015 Jun; 24(6):905-12. PubMed ID: 25787716
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment associated with breast cancer mammography screening: A simulation study with calibration to population-based data.
Seigneurin A; Labarère J; François O; Exbrayat C; Dupouy M; Filippi M; Colonna M
Breast; 2016 Aug; 28():60-6. PubMed ID: 27240167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Digital mammography screening: average glandular dose and first performance parameters.
Weigel S; Girnus R; Czwoydzinski J; Decker T; Spital S; Heindel W
Rofo; 2007 Sep; 179(9):892-5. PubMed ID: 17705112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between mammographic and pathologic findings.
Evans A; Pinder S; Wilson R; Sibbering M; Poller D; Elston C; Ellis I
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Jun; 162(6):1307-11. PubMed ID: 8191988
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Modeling the natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ based on population data.
Chootipongchaivat S; van Ravesteyn NT; Li X; Huang H; Weedon-Fekjær H; Ryser MD; Weaver DL; Burnside ES; Heckman-Stoddard BM; de Koning HJ; Lee SJ
Breast Cancer Res; 2020 May; 22(1):53. PubMed ID: 32460821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Changes in incidence of in situ and invasive breast cancer by histology type following mammography screening.
Luke C; Priest K; Roder D
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2006; 7(1):69-74. PubMed ID: 16629519
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Changes in invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ rates in relation to the decline in hormone therapy use.
Farhat GN; Walker R; Buist DS; Onega T; Kerlikowske K
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Dec; 28(35):5140-6. PubMed ID: 21060026
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
Buist DSM; Abraham L; Lee CI; Lee JM; Lehman C; O'Meara ES; Stout NK; Henderson LM; Hill D; Wernli KJ; Haas JS; Tosteson ANA; Kerlikowske K; Onega T;
JAMA Intern Med; 2018 Apr; 178(4):458-468. PubMed ID: 29435556
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Effect of organised mammography screening on stage-specific incidence in Norway: population study.
Lousdal ML; Kristiansen IS; Møller B; Støvring H
Br J Cancer; 2016 Mar; 114(5):590-6. PubMed ID: 26835975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
