126 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26124476)
1. Evaluating Prognostic Markers Using Relative Utility Curves and Test Tradeoffs.
Baker SG; Kramer BS
J Clin Oncol; 2015 Aug; 33(23):2578-80. PubMed ID: 26124476
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Putting risk prediction in perspective: relative utility curves.
Baker SG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Nov; 101(22):1538-42. PubMed ID: 19843888
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Metabolic syndrome as a prognostic factor for breast cancer recurrences.
Pasanisi P; Berrino F; De Petris M; Venturelli E; Mastroianni A; Panico S
Int J Cancer; 2006 Jul; 119(1):236-8. PubMed ID: 16450399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Assessing breast cancer risk: evolution of the Gail Model.
Bondy ML; Newman LA
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Sep; 98(17):1172-3. PubMed ID: 16954464
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. The Genomic Grade Assay Compared With Ki67 to Determine Risk of Distant Breast Cancer Recurrence.
Ignatiadis M; Azim HA; Desmedt C; Veys I; Larsimont D; Salgado R; Lyng MB; Viale G; Leyland-Jones B; Giobbie-Hurder A; Kammler R; Dell'Orto P; Rothé F; Laïos I; Ditzel HJ; Regan MM; Piccart M; Michiels S; Sotiriou C
JAMA Oncol; 2016 Feb; 2(2):217-24. PubMed ID: 26633571
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Quantitative nuclear morphometry by image analysis for prediction of recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
Hoque A; Lippman SM; Boiko IV; Atkinson EN; Sneige N; Sahin A; Weber DM; Risin S; Lagios MD; Schwarting R; Colburn WJ; Dhingra K; Follen M; Kelloff GJ; Boone CW; Hittelman WN
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2001 Mar; 10(3):249-59. PubMed ID: 11303595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Predicting risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women by hormone receptor status.
Chlebowski RT; Anderson GL; Lane DS; Aragaki AK; Rohan T; Yasmeen S; Sarto G; Rosenberg CA; Hubbell FA;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2007 Nov; 99(22):1695-705. PubMed ID: 18000216
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. CA 15.3 measurements for separating FDG PET/CT positive from negative findings in breast carcinoma recurrence. Factors influencing the area under the ROC curve.
Kruse V; Van de Wiele C; Borms M; Maes A; Pottel H; Sathekge M; Cocquyt V
Nuklearmedizin; 2014 Aug; 53(4):131-8. PubMed ID: 25100557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Use of likelihood ratio computation to standardize the predictive power of noninvasive cardiovascular tests.
Montori VM; Ebbert JO
Mayo Clin Proc; 2000 Apr; 75(4):423-4. PubMed ID: 10761502
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Analysis in early stage triple-negative breast cancer treated with mastectomy without adjuvant radiotherapy: patterns of failure and prognostic factors.
Chen X; Yu X; Chen J; Zhang Z; Tuan J; Shao Z; Guo X; Feng Y
Cancer; 2013 Jul; 119(13):2366-74. PubMed ID: 23576181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Nonlinear discriminant analysis and prognostic factor classification in node-negative primary breast cancer using probabilistic neural networks.
Le Goff JM; Lavayssière L; Rouëssé J; Spyratos F
Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(3B):2213-8. PubMed ID: 10928180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Osteopontin C mRNA expression is associated with a poor clinical outcome in human breast cancer.
Patani N; Jiang W; Mokbel K
Int J Cancer; 2008 Jun; 122(11):2646. PubMed ID: 18302153
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer.
Jansen RL; Hillen HF; Schouten HC
Neth J Med; 1997 Aug; 51(2):65-77. PubMed ID: 9286143
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Increased risk of recurrence after hormone replacement therapy in breast cancer survivors.
Holmberg L; Iversen OE; Rudenstam CM; Hammar M; Kumpulainen E; Jaskiewicz J; Jassem J; Dobaczewska D; Fjosne HE; Peralta O; Arriagada R; Holmqvist M; Maenpaa J;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Apr; 100(7):475-82. PubMed ID: 18364505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The cell cycle profile test is a prognostic indicator for breast cancer patients treated with postoperative 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy.
Kurebayashi J; Kanomata N; Kozuka Y; Moriya T; Kikukawa N; Kawasaki Y; Harada S; Tamura S; Nakayama S; Ishihara H; Noguchi S; Sonoo H
Jpn J Clin Oncol; 2011 Jun; 41(6):739-46. PubMed ID: 21527410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. A step in the right direction.
Swain SM
J Clin Oncol; 2006 Aug; 24(23):3717-8. PubMed ID: 16720679
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Prospective Evaluation of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay for Breast Cancer Decision-Making in Ontario.
Levine MN; Julian JA; Bedard PL; Eisen A; Trudeau ME; Higgins B; Bordeleau L; Pritchard KI
J Clin Oncol; 2016 Apr; 34(10):1065-71. PubMed ID: 26598746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Beyond the Gail model: lobular involution may help refine breast cancer risk assessment.
Rowan K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Feb; 101(3):134-5. PubMed ID: 19176450
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
19. Prognostic value of triple-negative phenotype at the time of locally recurrent, conservatively treated breast cancer.
Parikh RR; Housman D; Yang Q; Toppmeyer D; Wilson LD; Haffty BG
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2008 Nov; 72(4):1056-63. PubMed ID: 18676094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Recurrence rates in breast cancer patients with false-negative intraoperative evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes.
Taras AR; Hendrickson NA; Lowe KA; Atwood M; Beatty JD
Am J Surg; 2010 May; 199(5):625-8. PubMed ID: 20466106
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
