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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25415718)

  • 1. Implications of CISNET modeling on number needed to screen and mortality reduction with digital mammography in women 40-49 years old.
    Hendrick RE; Helvie MA; Hardesty LA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Dec; 203(6):1379-81. PubMed ID: 25415718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death.
    Hendrick RE; Helvie MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2012 Mar; 198(3):723-8. PubMed ID: 22358016
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. United States Preventive Services Task Force screening mammography recommendations: science ignored.
    Hendrick RE; Helvie MA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2011 Feb; 196(2):W112-6. PubMed ID: 21257850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Clinical outcomes of modelling mammography screening strategies.
    Yaffe MJ; Mittmann N; Lee P; Tosteson AN; Trentham-Dietz A; Alagoz O; Stout NK
    Health Rep; 2015 Dec; 26(12):9-15. PubMed ID: 26676234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.
    Mandelblatt JS; Stout NK; Schechter CB; van den Broek JJ; Miglioretti DL; Krapcho M; Trentham-Dietz A; Munoz D; Lee SJ; Berry DA; van Ravesteyn NT; Alagoz O; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Near AM; Hoeffken A; Chang Y; Heijnsdijk EA; Chisholm G; Huang X; Huang H; Ergun MA; Gangnon R; Sprague BL; Plevritis S; Feuer E; de Koning HJ; Cronin KA
    Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):215-25. PubMed ID: 26756606
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
    Trentham-Dietz A; Chapman CH; Jayasekera J; Lowry KP; Heckman-Stoddard BM; Hampton JM; Caswell-Jin JL; Gangnon RE; Lu Y; Huang H; Stein S; Sun L; Gil Quessep EJ; Yang Y; Lu Y; Song J; Muñoz DF; Li Y; Kurian AW; Kerlikowske K; O'Meara ES; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Feuer EJ; Berry D; Plevritis SK; Huang X; de Koning HJ; van Ravesteyn NT; Lee SJ; Alagoz O; Schechter CB; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS
    JAMA; 2024 Jun; 331(22):1947-1960. PubMed ID: 38687505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Comparison of recommendations for screening mammography using CISNET models.
    Arleo EK; Hendrick RE; Helvie MA; Sickles EA
    Cancer; 2017 Oct; 123(19):3673-3680. PubMed ID: 28832983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes.
    Trentham-Dietz A; Kerlikowske K; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Schechter CB; Ergun MA; van den Broek JJ; Alagoz O; Sprague BL; van Ravesteyn NT; Near AM; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Chandler Y; de Koning HJ; Mandelblatt JS; Tosteson AN;
    Ann Intern Med; 2016 Nov; 165(10):700-712. PubMed ID: 27548583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening for Women With Down Syndrome: a Collaborative Modeling Study.
    Alagoz O; Hajjar A; Chootipongchaivat S; van Ravesteyn NT; Yeh JM; Ergun MA; de Koning HJ; Chicoine B; Martin B
    J Gen Intern Med; 2019 Nov; 34(11):2374-2381. PubMed ID: 31385214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.
    van Ravesteyn NT; Miglioretti DL; Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Buist DS; Huang H; Heijnsdijk EA; Trentham-Dietz A; Alagoz O; Near AM; Kerlikowske K; Nelson HD; Mandelblatt JS; de Koning HJ
    Ann Intern Med; 2012 May; 156(9):609-17. PubMed ID: 22547470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Models Using the Maximum Clinical Incidence Reduction Methodology.
    van den Broek JJ; van Ravesteyn NT; Mandelblatt JS; Cevik M; Schechter CB; Lee SJ; Huang H; Li Y; Munoz DF; Plevritis SK; de Koning HJ; Stout NK; van Ballegooijen M
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(1_suppl):112S-125S. PubMed ID: 29554471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study.
    Miglioretti DL; Lange J; van den Broek JJ; Lee CI; van Ravesteyn NT; Ritley D; Kerlikowske K; Fenton JJ; Melnikow J; de Koning HJ; Hubbard RA
    Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):205-14. PubMed ID: 26756460
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Likelihood that a woman with screen-detected breast cancer has had her "life saved" by that screening.
    Welch HG; Frankel BA
    Arch Intern Med; 2011 Dec; 171(22):2043-6. PubMed ID: 22025097
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?
    Keen JD; Keen JE
    BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2009 Apr; 9():18. PubMed ID: 19341448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Implementation of digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening program: effect of screening round on recall rate and cancer detection.
    Sala M; Comas M; Macià F; Martinez J; Casamitjana M; Castells X
    Radiology; 2009 Jul; 252(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 19420316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparing CISNET Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Predictions to Observed Clinical Trial Results of Mammography Screening from Ages 40 to 49.
    van den Broek JJ; van Ravesteyn NT; Mandelblatt JS; Huang H; Ergun MA; Burnside ES; Xu C; Li Y; Alagoz O; Lee SJ; Stout NK; Song J; Trentham-Dietz A; Plevritis SK; Moss SM; de Koning HJ
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Apr; 38(1_suppl):140S-150S. PubMed ID: 29554468
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Screening Mammography Efficacy: A Comparison Between Screen-Film, Computed Radiography and Digital Mammography in Taiwan.
    Elbakkoush AA; Atique S; Chiang IJ
    Stud Health Technol Inform; 2015; 216():914. PubMed ID: 26262216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
    Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Quality-of-life effects of screening mammography in Norway.
    Zahl PH; Kalager M; Suhrke P; Nord E
    Int J Cancer; 2020 Apr; 146(8):2104-2112. PubMed ID: 31254388
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in Australia: an aggregate cohort study.
    Morrell S; Taylor R; Roder D; Dobson A
    J Med Screen; 2012 Mar; 19(1):26-34. PubMed ID: 22345322
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.