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 *

102 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24939774)

  • 1. Why are results of organised mammography screening so difficult to interpret?
    Falk RS
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2014 Jun; 134(11):1124-6. PubMed ID: 24939774
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. [Re: Why are results of organised mammography screening so difficult to interpret?].
    Zahl PH
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2014 Sep; 134(16):1544-5. PubMed ID: 25178207
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. [Attendance in the second phase (2004-2005) of the Hungarian organized breast cancer screening program].
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Döbrossy L; Péntek Z; Kovács A; Budai A; Kövi R; Ember I
    Orv Hetil; 2008 Aug; 149(32):1491-8. PubMed ID: 18672438
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Breast cancer mortality in Norway after the introduction of mammography screening.
    Olsen AH; Lynge E; Njor SH; Kumle M; Waaseth M; Braaten T; Lund E
    Int J Cancer; 2013 Jan; 132(1):208-14. PubMed ID: 22532175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Who gets screened, and where: a comparison of organised and opportunistic mammography screening in Geneva, Switzerland.
    Chamot E; Charvet AI; Perneger TV
    Eur J Cancer; 2007 Feb; 43(3):576-84. PubMed ID: 17223542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening program: The Sogn and Fjordane study.
    Juel IM; Skaane P; Hoff SR; Johannessen G; Hofvind S
    Acta Radiol; 2010 Nov; 51(9):962-8. PubMed ID: 20942729
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland.
    de Gelder R; Bulliard JL; de Wolf C; Fracheboud J; Draisma G; Schopper D; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(1):127-38. PubMed ID: 19038540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. [Is the benefit of organized mass screening for cervix cancer and breast cancer in Norway scientifically justified?].
    Zahl PH
    Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen; 2000 Jun; 120(17):2002-5. PubMed ID: 11008534
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Mammography activity in Norway 1983 to 2008.
    Lynge E; Braaten T; Njor SH; Olsen AH; Kumle M; Waaseth M; Lund E
    Acta Oncol; 2011 Oct; 50(7):1062-7. PubMed ID: 21830995
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Detection of breast cancer. Mammography should be available.
    Querci della Rovere G; Warren R
    BMJ; 2001 Mar; 322(7289):792-3. PubMed ID: 11282873
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Recommendations of the French Society of Mammography and Breast Pathology on quality criteria in mass screening for breast cancer in France].
    Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet; 1994 Oct; 89(10):510-1. PubMed ID: 7817080
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Screening mammography for women aged 40-49: are we off the fence yet?
    Barton MB
    CMAJ; 2001 Feb; 164(4):498-9. PubMed ID: 11233871
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. [Breast cancer screening by mammography: evaluation by Gotzsche and Olsen meta-analysis].
    Agence Nationale d'Accrédiation et d'Evaluation en Santé
    J Radiol; 2003 Mar; 84(3):336-41. PubMed ID: 12741380
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Breast screening in older women.
    Nattress K
    Prof Nurse; 1999 Dec; 15(3):151. PubMed ID: 10765321
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Early evaluation of an organised mammography screening program in Greece 2004-2009.
    Simou E; Tsimitselis D; Tsopanlioti M; Anastasakis I; Papatheodorou D; Kourlaba G; Gerasimos P; Maniadakis N
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 35(4):375-80. PubMed ID: 21474412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The cumulative risk of false-positive screening results across screening centres in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program.
    Roman M; Skaane P; Hofvind S
    Eur J Radiol; 2014 Sep; 83(9):1639-44. PubMed ID: 24972452
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Role of imaging in breast cancer detection.
    Giurescu ME; Hu T; Obembe O
    AAOHN J; 2010 Apr; 58(4):131-4. PubMed ID: 20415340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Should we undertake an MRI breast screening trial?
    Thorat MA
    Lancet; 2007 Dec; 370(9603):1902; author reply 1903-4. PubMed ID: 18068505
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Australia's national breast screening program 18 years on: time for a new direction?
    Spillane AJ; Brennan ME
    ANZ J Surg; 2009 Oct; 79(10):674-6. PubMed ID: 19878156
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program.
    Kalager M; Adami HO; Bretthauer M; Tamimi RM
    Ann Intern Med; 2012 Apr; 156(7):491-9. PubMed ID: 22473436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.