140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25347134)
1. Computer-aided detection in mammography: downstream effect on diagnostic testing, ductal carcinoma in situ treatment, and costs.
Fenton JJ; Lee CI; Xing G; Baldwin LM; Elmore JG
JAMA Intern Med; 2014 Dec; 174(12):2032-4. PubMed ID: 25347134
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection: a population-based study of medicare enrollees.
Fenton JJ; Xing G; Elmore JG; Bang H; Chen SL; Lindfors KK; Baldwin LM
Ann Intern Med; 2013 Apr; 158(8):580-7. PubMed ID: 23588746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Higher mammography screening costs without appreciable clinical benefit: the case of digital mammography.
Kerlikowske K; Hubbard R; Tosteson AN
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Aug; 106(8):. PubMed ID: 25031310
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Value of a short-term imaging follow-up after a benign result in a one-stop breast unit: Is it still useful?
Daroles J; Borget I; Suciu V; Mazouni C; Delaloge S; Balleyguier C
Eur J Cancer; 2017 Nov; 85():23-30. PubMed ID: 28881248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Computer aided mammography gets ahead of the evidence.
BMJ; 2013 Apr; 346():f2387. PubMed ID: 23596219
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Measuring the Effectiveness of Mammography.
Chen WY
JAMA Oncol; 2015 Nov; 1(8):1037-8. PubMed ID: 26501739
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Evolution of breast cancer screening in the Medicare population: clinical and economic implications.
Killelea BK; Long JB; Chagpar AB; Ma X; Wang R; Ross JS; Gross CP
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Aug; 106(8):. PubMed ID: 25031307
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Breast MRI screening for average-risk women: A monte carlo simulation cost-benefit analysis.
Mango VL; Goel A; Mema E; Kwak E; Ha R
J Magn Reson Imaging; 2019 Jun; 49(7):e216-e221. PubMed ID: 30632645
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimizing Mammography Screening Intervals.
Yi M; Hunt KK
JAMA; 2015 Oct; 314(15):1635-6. PubMed ID: 26501538
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Variable Appearances of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Calcifications on Digital Mammography, Synthesized Mammography, and Tomosynthesis: A Pictorial Essay.
Hwang E; Szabo J; Sonnenblick EB; Margolies LR
Can Assoc Radiol J; 2018 Feb; 69(1):2-9. PubMed ID: 28947267
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparative effectiveness of incorporating a hypothetical DCIS prognostic marker into breast cancer screening.
Trentham-Dietz A; Ergun MA; Alagoz O; Stout NK; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Dittus K; James TA; Vacek PM; Herschorn SD; Burnside ES; Tosteson ANA; Weaver DL; Sprague BL
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Feb; 168(1):229-239. PubMed ID: 29185118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Ductal carcinomas in situ and invasive cancers detected on screening mammography: Cost-effectiveness of initial and subsequent rounds of population-based program 2007-2014.
Szynglarewicz B; Matkowski R
Adv Clin Exp Med; 2017; 26(2):259-262. PubMed ID: 28791843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessment of grating-based X-ray phase-contrast CT for differentiation of invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ in an experimental ex vivo set-up.
Sztrókay A; Herzen J; Auweter SD; Liebhardt S; Mayr D; Willner M; Hahn D; Zanette I; Weitkamp T; Hellerhoff K; Pfeiffer F; Reiser MF; Bamberg F
Eur Radiol; 2013 Feb; 23(2):381-7. PubMed ID: 22932738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Is computer aided detection (CAD) cost effective in screening mammography? A model based on the CADET II study.
Guerriero C; Gillan MG; Cairns J; Wallis MG; Gilbert FJ
BMC Health Serv Res; 2011 Jan; 11():11. PubMed ID: 21241473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial.
Hofvind S; Holen ÅS; Aase HS; Houssami N; Sebuødegård S; Moger TA; Haldorsen IS; Akslen LA
Lancet Oncol; 2019 Jun; 20(6):795-805. PubMed ID: 31078459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.
Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Kerlikowske K; Alagoz O; Berry D; Buist DS; Cevik M; Chisholm G; de Koning HJ; Huang H; Hubbard RA; Miglioretti DL; Munsell MF; Trentham-Dietz A; van Ravesteyn NT; Tosteson AN; Mandelblatt JS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Jun; 106(6):dju092. PubMed ID: 24872543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Computer-aided mammography screening.
Hall FM
N Engl J Med; 2009 Feb; 360(8):836. PubMed ID: 19228631
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Computer-aided detection output on 172 subtle findings on normal mammograms previously obtained in women with breast cancer detected at follow-up screening mammography.
Ikeda DM; Birdwell RL; O'Shaughnessy KF; Sickles EA; Brenner RJ
Radiology; 2004 Mar; 230(3):811-9. PubMed ID: 14764891
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Effectiveness of computer-aided detection in community mammography practice.
Fenton JJ; Abraham L; Taplin SH; Geller BM; Carney PA; D'Orsi C; Elmore JG; Barlow WE;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2011 Aug; 103(15):1152-61. PubMed ID: 21795668
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
