359 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28170394)
21. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial.
Black WC; Gareen IF; Soneji SS; Sicks JD; Keeler EB; Aberle DR; Naeim A; Church TR; Silvestri GA; Gorelick J; Gatsonis C;
N Engl J Med; 2014 Nov; 371(19):1793-802. PubMed ID: 25372087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Cost-effectiveness of a low-dose computed tomography screening programme for lung cancer in New Zealand.
Jaine R; Kvizhinadze G; Nair N; Blakely T
Lung Cancer; 2018 Oct; 124():233-240. PubMed ID: 30268467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Comparing benefits from many possible computed tomography lung cancer screening programs: extrapolating from the National Lung Screening Trial using comparative modeling.
McMahon PM; Meza R; Plevritis SK; Black WC; Tammemagi CM; Erdogan A; ten Haaf K; Hazelton W; Holford TR; Jeon J; Clarke L; Kong CY; Choi SE; Munshi VN; Han SS; van Rosmalen J; Pinsky PF; Moolgavkar S; de Koning HJ; Feuer EJ
PLoS One; 2014; 9(6):e99978. PubMed ID: 24979231
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Estimating the Cost-Effectiveness of Lung Cancer Screening with Low-Dose Computed Tomography for High-Risk Smokers in Australia.
Wade S; Weber M; Caruana M; Kang YJ; Marshall H; Manser R; Vinod S; Rankin N; Fong K; Canfell K
J Thorac Oncol; 2018 Aug; 13(8):1094-1105. PubMed ID: 29689434
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Cost-effectiveness of prostate cancer screening: a simulation study based on ERSPC data.
Heijnsdijk EA; de Carvalho TM; Auvinen A; Zappa M; Nelen V; Kwiatkowski M; Villers A; Páez A; Moss SM; Tammela TL; Recker F; Denis L; Carlsson SV; Wever EM; Bangma CH; Schröder FH; Roobol MJ; Hugosson J; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Jan; 107(1):366. PubMed ID: 25505238
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Cost-effectiveness and health impact of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for never smokers in Japan and the United States: a modelling study.
Kowada A
BMC Pulm Med; 2022 Jan; 22(1):19. PubMed ID: 34996423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Cost-effectiveness of risk-based low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer in Switzerland.
Tomonaga Y; de Nijs K; Bucher HC; de Koning H; Ten Haaf K
Int J Cancer; 2024 Feb; 154(4):636-647. PubMed ID: 37792671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluation of the lung cancer risks at which to screen ever- and never-smokers: screening rules applied to the PLCO and NLST cohorts.
Tammemägi MC; Church TR; Hocking WG; Silvestri GA; Kvale PA; Riley TL; Commins J; Berg CD
PLoS Med; 2014 Dec; 11(12):e1001764. PubMed ID: 25460915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Risk-based lung cancer screening in heavy smokers: a benefit-harm and cost-effectiveness modeling study.
Liu Y; Xu H; Lv L; Wang X; Kang R; Guo X; Wang H; Zheng L; Liu H; Guo L; Chen Q; Liu S; Qiao Y; Zhang S
BMC Med; 2024 Feb; 22(1):73. PubMed ID: 38369461
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. 'Reduced' HUNT model outperforms NLST and NELSON study criteria in predicting lung cancer in the Danish screening trial.
Røe OD; Markaki M; Tsamardinos I; Lagani V; Nguyen OTD; Pedersen JH; Saghir Z; Ashraf HG
BMJ Open Respir Res; 2019; 6(1):e000512. PubMed ID: 31803478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Screening for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Jonas DE; Reuland DS; Reddy SM; Nagle M; Clark SD; Weber RP; Enyioha C; Malo TL; Brenner AT; Armstrong C; Coker-Schwimmer M; Middleton JC; Voisin C; Harris RP
JAMA; 2021 Mar; 325(10):971-987. PubMed ID: 33687468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Development and Validation of Risk Models to Select Ever-Smokers for CT Lung Cancer Screening.
Katki HA; Kovalchik SA; Berg CD; Cheung LC; Chaturvedi AK
JAMA; 2016 Jun; 315(21):2300-11. PubMed ID: 27179989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Eligibility for low-dose computerized tomography screening among asbestos-exposed individuals.
Fitzgerald NR; Flanagan WM; Evans WK; Miller AB;
Scand J Work Environ Health; 2015 Jul; 41(4):407-12. PubMed ID: 25837734
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Lung cancer incidence and mortality in National Lung Screening Trial participants who underwent low-dose CT prevalence screening: a retrospective cohort analysis of a randomised, multicentre, diagnostic screening trial.
Patz EF; Greco E; Gatsonis C; Pinsky P; Kramer BS; Aberle DR
Lancet Oncol; 2016 May; 17(5):590-9. PubMed ID: 27009070
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Population impact of lung cancer screening in the United States: Projections from a microsimulation model.
Criss SD; Sheehan DF; Palazzo L; Kong CY
PLoS Med; 2018 Feb; 15(2):e1002506. PubMed ID: 29415013
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening in high-risk populations: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
Snowsill T; Yang H; Griffin E; Long L; Varley-Campbell J; Coelho H; Robinson S; Hyde C
Health Technol Assess; 2018 Nov; 22(69):1-276. PubMed ID: 30518460
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Risk prediction models for selection of lung cancer screening candidates: A retrospective validation study.
Ten Haaf K; Jeon J; Tammemägi MC; Han SS; Kong CY; Plevritis SK; Feuer EJ; de Koning HJ; Steyerberg EW; Meza R
PLoS Med; 2017 Apr; 14(4):e1002277. PubMed ID: 28376113
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Cost-effectiveness of Low-Dose Computed Tomography With a Plasma-Based Biomarker for Lung Cancer Screening in China.
Zhao Z; Wang Y; Wu W; Yang Y; Du L; Dong H
JAMA Netw Open; 2022 May; 5(5):e2213634. PubMed ID: 35608858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
