545 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25972043)
1. Opportunistic mammography screening provides effective detection rates in a limited resource healthcare system.
Teh YC; Tan GH; Taib NA; Rahmat K; Westerhout CJ; Fadzli F; See MH; Jamaris S; Yip CH
BMC Cancer; 2015 May; 15():405. PubMed ID: 25972043
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.
Lee M; Mariapun S; Rajaram N; Teo SH; Yip CH
BMC Public Health; 2017 Jan; 17(1):127. PubMed ID: 28129762
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Opportunistic breast cancer screening in Hong Kong; a revisit of the Kwong Wah Hospital experience.
Lui CY; Lam HS; Chan LK; Tam KF; Chan CM; Leung TY; Mak KL
Hong Kong Med J; 2007 Apr; 13(2):106-13. PubMed ID: 17406037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Results of intermediate measures from a population-based, randomized trial of mammographic screening prevalence and detection of breast carcinoma among Asian women: the Singapore Breast Screening Project.
Ng EH; Ng FC; Tan PH; Low SC; Chiang G; Tan KP; Seow A; Emmanuel S; Tan CH; Ho GH; Ng LT; Wilde CC
Cancer; 1998 Apr; 82(8):1521-8. PubMed ID: 9554530
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old.
Curpen BN; Sickles EA; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB; Frankel SD
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 May; 164(5):1099-103. PubMed ID: 7717212
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer.
Meshkat B; Prichard RS; Al-Hilli Z; Bass GA; Quinn C; O'Doherty A; Rothwell J; Geraghty J; Evoy D; McDermott EW
Breast; 2015 Jun; 24(3):278-82. PubMed ID: 25771080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Are prognostic factors more favorable for breast cancer detected by organized screening than by opportunistic screening or clinical diagnosis? A study in Loire-Atlantique (France).
Vanier A; Leux C; Allioux C; Billon-Delacour S; Lombrail P; Molinié F
Cancer Epidemiol; 2013 Oct; 37(5):683-7. PubMed ID: 23880147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluation of the contralateral breast in patients with ipsilateral breast carcinoma: the role of mammography.
Muttarak M; Pojchamarnwiputh S; Padungchaichote W; Chaiwun B
Singapore Med J; 2002 May; 43(5):229-33. PubMed ID: 12188073
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. International programs for the detection of breast cancer.
Smith RA
Salud Publica Mex; 2011; 53(5):394-404. PubMed ID: 22218793
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Evolution of breast cancer screening in countries with intermediate and increasing incidence of breast cancer.
Wu GH; Chen LS; Chang KJ; Hou MF; Chen SC; Liu TJ; Huang CS; Hsu GC; Yu CC; Jeng LL; Chen ST; Chou YH; Wu CY; Shin-Lan K; Chen TH;
J Med Screen; 2006; 13 Suppl 1():S23-7. PubMed ID: 17227638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Mammography in 40-year-old women: what difference does it make? The potential impact of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) mammography guidelines.
Shen N; Hammonds LS; Madsen D; Dale P
Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct; 18(11):3066-71. PubMed ID: 21863364
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The impact of mammographic breast cancer screening in Singapore: a comparison between screen-detected and symptomatic women.
Wang WV; Tan SM; Chow WL
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2011; 12(10):2735-40. PubMed ID: 22320984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Opportunistic breast cancer early detection in Tyrol, Austria 1996-2004. Is a mammography-screening program necessary?
Frede TE
Eur J Radiol; 2005 Jul; 55(1):130-8. PubMed ID: 15925467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Breast cancer in limited-resource countries: an overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative 2005 guidelines.
Anderson BO; Shyyan R; Eniu A; Smith RA; Yip CH; Bese NS; Chow LW; Masood S; Ramsey SD; Carlson RW
Breast J; 2006; 12 Suppl 1():S3-15. PubMed ID: 16430397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance goals for an adjunct diagnostic test to reduce unnecessary biopsies after screening mammography: analysis of costs, benefits, and consequences.
Lee CI; Bensink ME; Berry K; Musa Z; Bodnar C; Dann R; Jarvik JG; Lehman CD; Ramsey SD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2013 Dec; 10(12):924-30. PubMed ID: 24295942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Late-stage breast cancer among women with recent negative screening mammography: do clinical encounters offer opportunity for earlier detection?
Mouchawar J; Taplin S; Ichikawa L; Barlow WE; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Gilbert J; Manos MM; Ulcickas Yood M
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2005; (35):39-46. PubMed ID: 16287884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
