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 *

285 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26627479)

  • 1. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.
    Brentnall AR; Harkness EF; Astley SM; Donnelly LS; Stavrinos P; Sampson S; Fox L; Sergeant JC; Harvie MN; Wilson M; Beetles U; Gadde S; Lim Y; Jain A; Bundred S; Barr N; Reece V; Howell A; Cuzick J; Evans DG
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Dec; 17(1):147. PubMed ID: 26627479
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.
    Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Buist DSM; Bowles EJA
    JAMA Oncol; 2018 Sep; 4(9):e180174. PubMed ID: 29621362
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China.
    Zhang L; Jie Z; Xu S; Zhang L; Guo X
    Med Sci Monit; 2018 Aug; 24():5528-5532. PubMed ID: 30089770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.
    McCarthy AM; Guan Z; Welch M; Griffin ME; Sippo DA; Deng Z; Coopey SB; Acar A; Semine A; Parmigiani G; Braun D; Hughes KS
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2020 May; 112(5):489-497. PubMed ID: 31556450
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mammographic breast density refines Tyrer-Cuzick estimates of breast cancer risk in high-risk women: findings from the placebo arm of the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study I.
    Warwick J; Birke H; Stone J; Warren RM; Pinney E; Brentnall AR; Duffy SW; Howell A; Cuzick J
    Breast Cancer Res; 2014 Oct; 16(5):451. PubMed ID: 25292294
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Inclusion of Endogenous Plasma Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate and Mammographic Density in Risk Prediction Models for Breast Cancer.
    Gabrielson M; Ubhayasekera KA; Acharya SR; Franko MA; Eriksson M; Bergquist J; Czene K; Hall P
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2020 Mar; 29(3):574-581. PubMed ID: 31948996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Use of Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms and Mammographic Density Plus Classic Risk Factors for Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
    van Veen EM; Brentnall AR; Byers H; Harkness EF; Astley SM; Sampson S; Howell A; Newman WG; Cuzick J; Evans DGR
    JAMA Oncol; 2018 Apr; 4(4):476-482. PubMed ID: 29346471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A case-control evaluation of 143 single nucleotide polymorphisms for breast cancer risk stratification with classical factors and mammographic density.
    Brentnall AR; van Veen EM; Harkness EF; Rafiq S; Byers H; Astley SM; Sampson S; Howell A; Newman WG; Cuzick J; Evans DGR
    Int J Cancer; 2020 Apr; 146(8):2122-2129. PubMed ID: 31251818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The Tyrer-Cuzick Model Inaccurately Predicts Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in Women With LCIS.
    Valero MG; Zabor EC; Park A; Gilbert E; Newman A; King TA; Pilewskie ML
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2020 Mar; 27(3):736-740. PubMed ID: 31559544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A Case-Control Study to Add Volumetric or Clinical Mammographic Density into the Tyrer-Cuzick Breast Cancer Risk Model.
    Brentnall AR; Cohn WF; Knaus WA; Yaffe MJ; Cuzick J; Harvey JA
    J Breast Imaging; 2019 Jun; 1(2):99-106. PubMed ID: 31423486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Preliminary evaluation of the publicly available Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software tool: comparison of fully automated area and volumetric density measures in a case-control study with digital mammography.
    Keller BM; Chen J; Daye D; Conant EF; Kontos D
    Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Aug; 17():117. PubMed ID: 26303303
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry.
    Pal Choudhury P; Brook MN; Hurson AN; Lee A; Mulder CV; Coulson P; Schoemaker MJ; Jones ME; Swerdlow AJ; Chatterjee N; Antoniou AC; Garcia-Closas M
    Breast Cancer Res; 2021 Feb; 23(1):22. PubMed ID: 33588869
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme.
    Amir E; Evans DG; Shenton A; Lalloo F; Moran A; Boggis C; Wilson M; Howell A
    J Med Genet; 2003 Nov; 40(11):807-14. PubMed ID: 14627668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Variation in Breast Cancer Risk Model Estimates Among Women in Their 40s Seen in Primary Care.
    Schonberg MA; Karamourtopoulos M; Pinheiro A; Davis RB; Sternberg SB; Mehta TS; Gilliam EA; Tung NM
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2022 Apr; 31(4):495-502. PubMed ID: 35073183
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.
    Niell BL; Augusto B; McIntyre M; Conley CC; Gerke T; Roetzheim R; Garcia J; Vadaparampil ST
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Jul; 217(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 33978450
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative.
    Kurian AW; Hughes E; Simmons T; Bernhisel R; Probst B; Meek S; Caswell-Jin JL; John EM; Lanchbury JS; Slavin TP; Wagner S; Gutin A; Rohan TE; Shadyab AH; Manson JE; Lane D; Chlebowski RT; Stefanick ML
    Cancer; 2021 Oct; 127(20):3742-3750. PubMed ID: 34228814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population.
    Stevanato KP; Pedroso RB; Iora P; Santos LD; Pelloso FC; Melo WA; Carvalho MDB; Pelloso SM
    Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Nov; 20(11):3407-3413. PubMed ID: 31759366
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. A comparison of five methods of measuring mammographic density: a case-control study.
    Astley SM; Harkness EF; Sergeant JC; Warwick J; Stavrinos P; Warren R; Wilson M; Beetles U; Gadde S; Lim Y; Jain A; Bundred S; Barr N; Reece V; Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Howell T; Evans DG
    Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Feb; 20(1):10. PubMed ID: 29402289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants.
    Evans DGR; Harkness EF; Brentnall AR; van Veen EM; Astley SM; Byers H; Sampson S; Southworth J; Stavrinos P; Howell SJ; Maxwell AJ; Howell A; Newman WG; Cuzick J
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2019 Jul; 176(1):141-148. PubMed ID: 30941651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.
    Boughey JC; Hartmann LC; Anderson SS; Degnim AC; Vierkant RA; Reynolds CA; Frost MH; Pankratz VS
    J Clin Oncol; 2010 Aug; 28(22):3591-6. PubMed ID: 20606088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 15.