314 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27548583)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. Clinical Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening for Survivors of Childhood Cancer Treated With Chest Radiation : A Comparative Modeling Study.
Yeh JM; Lowry KP; Schechter CB; Diller LR; Alagoz O; Armstrong GT; Hampton JM; Leisenring W; Liu Q; Mandelblatt JS; Miglioretti DL; Moskowitz CS; Oeffinger KC; Trentham-Dietz A; Stout NK
Ann Intern Med; 2020 Sep; 173(5):331-341. PubMed ID: 32628531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.
Nelson HD; O'Meara ES; Kerlikowske K; Balch S; Miglioretti D
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):226-35. PubMed ID: 26756902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.
Lowry KP; Coley RY; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Herschorn S; Tosteson ANA; Rauscher G; Lee CI
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Jul; 3(7):e2011792. PubMed ID: 32721031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening in 75 + Women to Inform Shared Decision-making: a Simulation Modeling Study.
Jayasekera J; Stein S; Wilson OWA; Wojcik KM; Kamil D; Røssell EL; Abraham LA; O'Meara ES; Schoenborn NL; Schechter CB; Mandelblatt JS; Schonberg MA; Stout NK
J Gen Intern Med; 2024 Feb; 39(3):428-439. PubMed ID: 38010458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms.
Mandelblatt JS; Cronin KA; Bailey S; Berry DA; de Koning HJ; Draisma G; Huang H; Lee SJ; Munsell M; Plevritis SK; Ravdin P; Schechter CB; Sigal B; Stoto MA; Stout NK; van Ravesteyn NT; Venier J; Zelen M; Feuer EJ;
Ann Intern Med; 2009 Nov; 151(10):738-47. PubMed ID: 19920274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.
Ho TH; Bissell MCS; Kerlikowske K; Hubbard RA; Sprague BL; Lee CI; Tice JA; Tosteson ANA; Miglioretti DL
JAMA Netw Open; 2022 Mar; 5(3):e222440. PubMed ID: 35333365
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.
Lee CI; Cevik M; Alagoz O; Sprague BL; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Stout NK; Jarvik JG; Ramsey SD; Lehman CD
Radiology; 2015 Mar; 274(3):772-80. PubMed ID: 25350548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies for Women With ATM, CHEK2, and PALB2 Pathogenic Variants: A Comparative Modeling Analysis.
Lowry KP; Geuzinge HA; Stout NK; Alagoz O; Hampton J; Kerlikowske K; de Koning HJ; Miglioretti DL; van Ravesteyn NT; Schechter C; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Trentham-Dietz A; Weaver D; Yaffe MJ; Yeh JM; Couch FJ; Hu C; Kraft P; Polley EC; Mandelblatt JS; Kurian AW; Robson ME;
JAMA Oncol; 2022 Apr; 8(4):587-596. PubMed ID: 35175286
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.
Chootipongchaivat S; Wong XY; Ten Haaf K; Hartman M; Tan KB; van Ravesteyn NT; Wee HL
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2021 Apr; 30(4):653-660. PubMed ID: 33531436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.
Oeffinger KC; Fontham ET; Etzioni R; Herzig A; Michaelson JS; Shih YC; Walter LC; Church TR; Flowers CR; LaMonte SJ; Wolf AM; DeSantis C; Lortet-Tieulent J; Andrews K; Manassaram-Baptiste D; Saslow D; Smith RA; Brawley OW; Wender R;
JAMA; 2015 Oct; 314(15):1599-614. PubMed ID: 26501536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Performance and Cost-Effectiveness of Computed Tomography Lung Cancer Screening Scenarios in a Population-Based Setting: A Microsimulation Modeling Analysis in Ontario, Canada.
Ten Haaf K; Tammemägi MC; Bondy SJ; van der Aalst CM; Gu S; McGregor SE; Nicholas G; de Koning HJ; Paszat LF
PLoS Med; 2017 Feb; 14(2):e1002225. PubMed ID: 28170394
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Systematic reviews as a 'lens of evidence': Determinants of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening.
Mandrik O; Zielonke N; Meheus F; Severens JLH; Guha N; Herrero Acosta R; Murillo R
Int J Cancer; 2019 Aug; 145(4):994-1006. PubMed ID: 30762235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.
Kerlikowske K; Chen S; Golmakani MK; Sprague BL; Tice JA; Tosteson ANA; Rauscher GH; Henderson LM; Buist DSM; Lee JM; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2022 May; 114(5):676-685. PubMed ID: 35026019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Estimating Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis After Screening Mammography Among Older Women in the United States.
Richman IB; Long JB; Soulos PR; Wang SY; Gross CP
Ann Intern Med; 2023 Sep; 176(9):1172-1180. PubMed ID: 37549389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Supplemental magnetic resonance imaging plus mammography compared with magnetic resonance imaging or mammography by extent of breast density.
Kerlikowske K; Zhu W; Su YR; Sprague BL; Stout NK; Onega T; O'Meara ES; Henderson LM; Tosteson ANA; Wernli K; Miglioretti DL
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2024 Feb; 116(2):249-257. PubMed ID: 37897090
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.
O'Donoghue C; Eklund M; Ozanne EM; Esserman LJ
Ann Intern Med; 2014 Feb; 160(3):145. PubMed ID: 24658691
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
