394 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27814820)
41. Evaluation of a Stratified National Breast Screening Program in the United Kingdom: An Early Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Gray E; Donten A; Karssemeijer N; van Gils C; Evans DG; Astley S; Payne K
Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1100-1109. PubMed ID: 28964442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. Why question screening mammography for women in their forties?
Fletcher SW
Radiol Clin North Am; 1995 Nov; 33(6):1259-71. PubMed ID: 7480669
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Relation between clinical and mammographic diagnosis of breast problems and the cancer/biopsy rate.
Sterns EE
Can J Surg; 1996 Apr; 39(2):128-32. PubMed ID: 8769923
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Assessment of BI-RADS category 4 lesions detected with screening mammography and screening US: utility of MR imaging.
Strobel K; Schrading S; Hansen NL; Barabasch A; Kuhl CK
Radiology; 2015 Feb; 274(2):343-51. PubMed ID: 25271857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Understanding patient options, utilization patterns, and burdens associated with breast cancer screening.
Harvey SC; Vegesna A; Mass S; Clarke J; Skoufalos A
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2014 Sep; 23 Suppl 1():S3-9. PubMed ID: 25247383
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial.
Lidbrink E; Elfving J; Frisell J; Jonsson E
BMJ; 1996 Feb; 312(7026):273-6. PubMed ID: 8611781
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced MRI in high-risk women.
Taneja C; Edelsberg J; Weycker D; Guo A; Oster G; Weinreb J
J Am Coll Radiol; 2009 Mar; 6(3):171-9. PubMed ID: 19248993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
49. Cost-Effectiveness of Tomosynthesis in Annual Screening Mammography.
Kalra VB; Wu X; Haas BM; Forman HP; Philpotts LE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Nov; 207(5):1152-1155. PubMed ID: 27547861
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. Resource use and cost of diagnostic workup of women with suspected breast cancer.
Lee DW; Stang PE; Goldberg GA; Haberman M
Breast J; 2009; 15(1):85-92. PubMed ID: 19120378
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. 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]
52. Trends in breast biopsy pathology diagnoses among women undergoing mammography in the United States: a report from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Allison KH; Abraham LA; Weaver DL; Tosteson AN; Nelson HD; Onega T; Geller BM; Kerlikowske K; Carney PA; Ichikawa LE; Buist DS; Elmore JG
Cancer; 2015 May; 121(9):1369-78. PubMed ID: 25603785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
53. Value of a short-term imaging follow-up after a benign result in a one-stop breast unit: Is it still useful?
Daroles J; Borget I; Suciu V; Mazouni C; Delaloge S; Balleyguier C
Eur J Cancer; 2017 Nov; 85():23-30. PubMed ID: 28881248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
54. A bimodal nomogram as an adjunct tool to reduce unnecessary breast biopsy following discordant ultrasonic and mammographic BI-RADS assessment.
Xu Z; Lin Y; Huo J; Gao Y; Lu J; Liang Y; Li L; Jiang Z; Du L; Lang T; Wen G; Li Y
Eur Radiol; 2024 Apr; 34(4):2608-2618. PubMed ID: 37840099
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. Quantitative estimates of the impact of sensitivity and specificity in mammographic screening in Germany.
Warmerdam PG; de Koning HJ; Boer R; Beemsterboer PM; Dierks ML; Swart E; Robra BP
J Epidemiol Community Health; 1997 Apr; 51(2):180-6. PubMed ID: 9196649
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year.
Ong MS; Mandl KD
Health Aff (Millwood); 2015 Apr; 34(4):576-83. PubMed ID: 25847639
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. Cost analysis of aggressive breast cancer screening.
Moskowitz M; Fox SH
Radiology; 1979 Jan; 130(1):253-6. PubMed ID: 103136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
58. Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study.
Whelehan P; Heywang-Köbrunner SH; Vinnicombe SJ; Hacker A; Jänsch A; Hapca A; Gray R; Jenkin M; Lowry K; Oeppen R; Reilly M; Stahnke M; Evans A
Clin Radiol; 2017 Jan; 72(1):95.e9-95.e15. PubMed ID: 27737763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Costs, effects and cost-effectiveness of breast cancer control in Ghana.
Zelle SG; Nyarko KM; Bosu WK; Aikins M; Niëns LM; Lauer JA; Sepulveda CR; Hontelez JA; Baltussen R
Trop Med Int Health; 2012 Aug; 17(8):1031-43. PubMed ID: 22809238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
60. Breast MRI as an adjunct to mammography for breast cancer screening in high-risk patients: retrospective review.
Raikhlin A; Curpen B; Warner E; Betel C; Wright B; Jong R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):889-97. PubMed ID: 25794083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
