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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24276527)

  • 1. Breast cancer risk assessment in 8,824 women attending a family history evaluation and screening programme.
    Evans DG; Ingham S; Dawe S; Roberts L; Lalloo F; Brentnall AR; Stavrinos P; Howell A
    Fam Cancer; 2014 Jun; 13(2):189-96. PubMed ID: 24276527
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme.
    Amir E; Evans DG; Shenton A; Lalloo F; Moran A; Boggis C; Wilson M; Howell A
    J Med Genet; 2003 Nov; 40(11):807-14. PubMed ID: 14627668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.
    Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Buist DSM; Bowles EJA
    JAMA Oncol; 2018 Sep; 4(9):e180174. PubMed ID: 29621362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.
    Brentnall AR; Harkness EF; Astley SM; Donnelly LS; Stavrinos P; Sampson S; Fox L; Sergeant JC; Harvie MN; Wilson M; Beetles U; Gadde S; Lim Y; Jain A; Bundred S; Barr N; Reece V; Howell A; Cuzick J; Evans DG
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Dec; 17(1):147. PubMed ID: 26627479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative.
    Kurian AW; Hughes E; Simmons T; Bernhisel R; Probst B; Meek S; Caswell-Jin JL; John EM; Lanchbury JS; Slavin TP; Wagner S; Gutin A; Rohan TE; Shadyab AH; Manson JE; Lane D; Chlebowski RT; Stefanick ML
    Cancer; 2021 Oct; 127(20):3742-3750. PubMed ID: 34228814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.
    McCarthy AM; Guan Z; Welch M; Griffin ME; Sippo DA; Deng Z; Coopey SB; Acar A; Semine A; Parmigiani G; Braun D; Hughes KS
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2020 May; 112(5):489-497. PubMed ID: 31556450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China.
    Zhang L; Jie Z; Xu S; Zhang L; Guo X
    Med Sci Monit; 2018 Aug; 24():5528-5532. PubMed ID: 30089770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry.
    Pal Choudhury P; Brook MN; Hurson AN; Lee A; Mulder CV; Coulson P; Schoemaker MJ; Jones ME; Swerdlow AJ; Chatterjee N; Antoniou AC; Garcia-Closas M
    Breast Cancer Res; 2021 Feb; 23(1):22. PubMed ID: 33588869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluation of mathematical models for breast cancer risk assessment in routine clinical use.
    Fasching PA; Bani MR; Nestle-Krämling C; Goecke TO; Niederacher D; Beckmann MW; Lux MP
    Eur J Cancer Prev; 2007 Jun; 16(3):216-24. PubMed ID: 17415092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women aged 40-49 years with a moderate family history of breast cancer: a single-arm cohort study.
    Duffy SW; Mackay J; Thomas S; Anderson E; Chen TH; Ellis I; Evans G; Fielder H; Fox R; Gui G; Macmillan D; Moss S; Rogers C; Sibbering M; Wallis M; Warren R; Watson E; Whynes D; Allgood P; Caunt J
    Health Technol Assess; 2013 Mar; 17(11):vii-xiv, 1-95. PubMed ID: 23489892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Breast cancer risk in young women in the national breast screening programme: implications for applying NICE guidelines for additional screening and chemoprevention.
    Evans DG; Brentnall AR; Harvie M; Dawe S; Sergeant JC; Stavrinos P; Astley S; Wilson M; Ainsworth J; Cuzick J; Buchan I; Donnelly LS; Howell A
    Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2014 Oct; 7(10):993-1001. PubMed ID: 25047362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose?
    Jacobi CE; de Bock GH; Siegerink B; van Asperen CJ
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 May; 115(2):381-90. PubMed ID: 18516672
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Prospective validation of the NCI Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (Gail Model) on 40,000 Australian women.
    Nickson C; Procopio P; Velentzis LS; Carr S; Devereux L; Mann GB; James P; Lee G; Wellard C; Campbell I
    Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Dec; 20(1):155. PubMed ID: 30572910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population.
    Stevanato KP; Pedroso RB; Iora P; Santos LD; Pelloso FC; Melo WA; Carvalho MDB; Pelloso SM
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Nov; 20(11):3407-3413. PubMed ID: 31759366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.
    Boughey JC; Hartmann LC; Anderson SS; Degnim AC; Vierkant RA; Reynolds CA; Frost MH; Pankratz VS
    J Clin Oncol; 2010 Aug; 28(22):3591-6. PubMed ID: 20606088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Assessing risk of breast cancer in an ethnically South-East Asia population (results of a multiple ethnic groups study).
    Gao F; Machin D; Chow KY; Sim YF; Duffy SW; Matchar DB; Goh CH; Chia KS
    BMC Cancer; 2012 Nov; 12():529. PubMed ID: 23164155
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Evaluating the prognostic performance of a polygenic risk score for breast cancer risk stratification.
    Olsen M; Fischer K; Bossuyt PM; Goetghebeur E
    BMC Cancer; 2021 Dec; 21(1):1351. PubMed ID: 34930164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants.
    Evans DGR; Harkness EF; Brentnall AR; van Veen EM; Astley SM; Byers H; Sampson S; Southworth J; Stavrinos P; Howell SJ; Maxwell AJ; Howell A; Newman WG; Cuzick J
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2019 Jul; 176(1):141-148. PubMed ID: 30941651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Limitations of the Gail model in the specialized breast cancer risk assessment clinic.
    Euhus DM; Leitch AM; Huth JF; Peters GN
    Breast J; 2002; 8(1):23-7. PubMed ID: 11856157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.