BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

513 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28244803)

  • 41. Effect of previous benign breast biopsy on the interpretive performance of subsequent screening mammography.
    Taplin SH; Abraham L; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Buist DS; Smith-Bindman R; Lehman C; Weaver D; Carney PA; Barlow WE
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 Jul; 102(14):1040-51. PubMed ID: 20601590
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Not all false positive diagnoses are equal: On the prognostic implications of false-positive diagnoses made in breast MRI versus in mammography / digital tomosynthesis screening.
    Kuhl CK; Keulers A; Strobel K; Schneider H; Gaisa N; Schrading S
    Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Feb; 20(1):13. PubMed ID: 29426360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Effect of recall rate on earlier screen detection of breast cancers based on the Dutch performance indicators.
    Otten JD; Karssemeijer N; Hendriks JH; Groenewoud JH; Fracheboud J; Verbeek AL; de Koning HJ; Holland R
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 May; 97(10):748-54. PubMed ID: 15900044
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.
    Lee JM; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD; Smith RA; Henderson LM; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
    JAMA Intern Med; 2019 May; 179(5):658-667. PubMed ID: 30882843
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Breast Cancer Characteristics Associated With Digital Versus Film-Screen Mammography for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers.
    Henderson LM; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Wernli KJ; Sprague BL; Lehman CD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Sep; 205(3):676-84. PubMed ID: 26295657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data.
    Vinnicombe S; Pinto Pereira SM; McCormack VA; Shiel S; Perry N; Dos Santos Silva IM
    Radiology; 2009 May; 251(2):347-58. PubMed ID: 19401569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
    Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer.
    Houssami N; Abraham LA; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BM; Muss HB; Irwig L
    JAMA; 2011 Feb; 305(8):790-9. PubMed ID: 21343578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography.
    Carney PA; Sickles EA; Monsees BS; Bassett LW; Brenner RJ; Feig SA; Smith RA; Rosenberg RD; Bogart TA; Browning S; Barry JW; Kelly MM; Tran KA; Miglioretti DL
    Radiology; 2010 May; 255(2):354-61. PubMed ID: 20413750
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
    Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Facility Mammography Volume in Relation to Breast Cancer Screening Outcomes.
    Onega T; Goldman LE; Walker RL; Miglioretti DL; Buist DS; Taplin S; Geller BM; Hill DA; Smith-Bindman R
    J Med Screen; 2016 Mar; 23(1):31-7. PubMed ID: 26265482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
    Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
    Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham LA; Lehman CD; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Voeks JH; Geller BM; Carney PA; Sickles EA
    Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):684-92. PubMed ID: 15734926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Effect of transition to digital mammography on clinical outcomes.
    Glynn CG; Farria DM; Monsees BS; Salcman JT; Wiele KN; Hildebolt CF
    Radiology; 2011 Sep; 260(3):664-70. PubMed ID: 21788529
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Risk of Breast Cancer in Women with False-Positive Results according to Mammographic Features.
    Castells X; Torá-Rocamora I; Posso M; Román M; Vernet-Tomas M; Rodríguez-Arana A; Domingo L; Vidal C; Baré M; Ferrer J; Quintana MJ; Sánchez M; Natal C; Espinàs JA; Saladié F; Sala M;
    Radiology; 2016 Aug; 280(2):379-86. PubMed ID: 26878225
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists?
    Leung JW; Margolin FR; Dee KE; Jacobs RP; Denny SR; Schrumpf JD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Jan; 188(1):236-41. PubMed ID: 17179372
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.
    Miglioretti DL; Ichikawa L; Smith RA; Buist DSM; Carney PA; Geller B; Monsees B; Onega T; Rosenberg R; Sickles EA; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K
    Acad Radiol; 2017 Oct; 24(10):1256-1264. PubMed ID: 28551400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.
    Taplin S; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Fenton JJ; Berns EA; Carney PA; Cutter GR; Sickles EA; Carl D; Elmore JG
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Jun; 100(12):876-87. PubMed ID: 18544742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Effect of Background Parenchymal Enhancement on Breast MR Imaging Interpretive Performance in Community-based Practices.
    Ray KM; Kerlikowske K; Lobach IV; Hofmann MB; Greenwood HI; Arasu VA; Hylton NM; Joe BN
    Radiology; 2018 Mar; 286(3):822-829. PubMed ID: 29072981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts.
    Rhodes DJ; Hruska CB; Phillips SW; Whaley DH; O'Connor MK
    Radiology; 2011 Jan; 258(1):106-18. PubMed ID: 21045179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 26.