107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24626617)
1. [In situ and invasive carcinoma identified through an opportunistic screening mammography in asymptomatic women in Mexico City].
Reynoso-Noverón N; Villaseñor-Navarro Y; Hernández-Ávila M; Mohar-Betancourt A
Salud Publica Mex; 2013; 55(5):469-77. PubMed ID: 24626617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical and radiological features of breast tumors according to history of false-positive results in mammography screening.
Domingo L; Romero A; Blanch J; Salas D; Sánchez M; Rodríguez-Arana A; Ferrer J; Ibáñez J; Vega A; Laso MS; Castells X; Sala M
Cancer Epidemiol; 2013 Oct; 37(5):660-5. PubMed ID: 23962702
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Does digital mammography increase detection of high-risk breast lesions presenting as calcifications?
Neal CH; Coletti MC; Joe A; Jeffries DO; Helvie MA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Nov; 201(5):1148-54. PubMed ID: 24147490
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Breast cancer screening by mammography in women aged under 50 years in Japan.
Morimoto T; Sasa M; Yamaguchi T; Kondo H; Akaiwa H; Sagara Y
Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(5C):3689-94. PubMed ID: 11268440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Spectrum of mammographically detected breast cancers.
Sener SF; Winchester DJ; Winchester DP; Kurek R; Motykie G; Martz CH; Rabbitt S
Am Surg; 1999 Aug; 65(8):731-5; discussion 735-6. PubMed ID: 10432082
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. The use of additional imaging increased specificity and decreased sensitivity in screening mammography.
Geller BM; Vacek PM; Skelly J; Harvey SC
J Clin Epidemiol; 2005 Sep; 58(9):942-50. PubMed ID: 16085198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Ultrasonographic detection and characterization of asymptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ with histopathologic correlation.
Gwak YJ; Kim HJ; Kwak JY; Lee SK; Shin KM; Lee HJ; Kim GC; Jang YJ; Han MH; Park JY; Jung JH
Acta Radiol; 2011 May; 52(4):364-71. PubMed ID: 21498298
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Increased mammography use and its impact on earlier breast cancer detection in Vermont, 1975-1999.
Vacek PM; Geller BM; Weaver DL; Foster RS
Cancer; 2002 Apr; 94(8):2160-8. PubMed ID: 12001112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Screening mammography interpretation test: more frequent mistakes.
Gozzi G; Martinoli C; Conti GM; Ganzetti A; Bodini M; Fiorentino C; Marini UP; Santini D; Bacigalupo L
Radiol Med; 2005 Mar; 109(3):268-79. PubMed ID: 15775896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography.
Weaver DL; Rosenberg RD; Barlow WE; Ichikawa L; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BM; Key CR; Maygarden SJ; Ballard-Barbash R
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 106(4):732-42. PubMed ID: 16411214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. First breast cancer mammography screening program in Mexico: initial results 2005-2006.
Rodríguez-Cuevas S; Guisa-Hohenstein F; Labastida-Almendaro S
Breast J; 2009; 15(6):623-31. PubMed ID: 19686232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. 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]
17. Ductal carcinoma in situ: computer-aided detection in screening mammography.
Pai VR; Gregory NE; Swinford AE; Rebner M
Radiology; 2006 Dec; 241(3):689-94. PubMed ID: 17053200
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Mammographic features of local recurrence in women who have undergone breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ.
Liberman L; Van Zee KJ; Dershaw DD; Morris EA; Abramson AF; Samli B
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1997 Feb; 168(2):489-93. PubMed ID: 9016233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
Berg WA; Gutierrez L; NessAiver MS; Carter WB; Bhargavan M; Lewis RS; Ioffe OB
Radiology; 2004 Dec; 233(3):830-49. PubMed ID: 15486214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Interval carcinomas in the Malmö Mammographic Screening Trial: radiographic appearance and prognostic considerations.
Ikeda DM; Andersson I; Wattsgård C; Janzon L; Linell F
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Aug; 159(2):287-94. PubMed ID: 1632342
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
