BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

511 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28244803)

  • 61. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
    van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
    Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.
    Elmore JG; Jackson SL; Abraham L; Miglioretti DL; Carney PA; Geller BM; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Onega T; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Buist DS
    Radiology; 2009 Dec; 253(3):641-51. PubMed ID: 19864507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Screening mammography performance and cancer detection among black women and white women in community practice.
    Gill KS; Yankaskas BC
    Cancer; 2004 Jan; 100(1):139-48. PubMed ID: 14692034
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Effect of computer-aided detection on independent double reading of paired screen-film and full-field digital screening mammograms.
    Skaane P; Kshirsagar A; Stapleton S; Young K; Castellino RA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Feb; 188(2):377-84. PubMed ID: 17242245
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. Evaluation of Adjunctive Ultrasonography for Breast Cancer Detection Among Women Aged 40-49 Years With Varying Breast Density Undergoing Screening Mammography: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.
    Harada-Shoji N; Suzuki A; Ishida T; Zheng YF; Narikawa-Shiono Y; Sato-Tadano A; Ohta R; Ohuchi N
    JAMA Netw Open; 2021 Aug; 4(8):e2121505. PubMed ID: 34406400
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. 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]  

  • 67. Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Measures of Diagnostic Accuracy among Women Screened in the Ontario Breast Screening Program.
    Prummel MV; Muradali D; Shumak R; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Done SJ; Yaffe MJ; Chiarelli AM
    Radiology; 2016 Feb; 278(2):365-73. PubMed ID: 26334680
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.
    Smith-Bindman R; Ballard-Barbash R; Miglioretti DL; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
    J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 15814020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Effect of age on breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
    Rafferty EA; Rose SL; Miller DP; Durand MA; Conant EF; Copit DS; Friedewald SM; Plecha DM; Ott IL; Hayes MK; Carlson KL; Cink TM; Barke LD; Greer LN; Niklason LT
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Aug; 164(3):659-666. PubMed ID: 28523569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening.
    McDonald ES; Oustimov A; Weinstein SP; Synnestvedt MB; Schnall M; Conant EF
    JAMA Oncol; 2016 Jun; 2(6):737-43. PubMed ID: 26893205
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Screening mammography-detected cancers: sensitivity of a computer-aided detection system applied to full-field digital mammograms.
    Yang SK; Moon WK; Cho N; Park JS; Cha JH; Kim SM; Kim SJ; Im JG
    Radiology; 2007 Jul; 244(1):104-11. PubMed ID: 17507722
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Organized breast screening programs in Canada: effect of radiologist reading volumes on outcomes.
    Coldman AJ; Major D; Doyle GP; D'yachkova Y; Phillips N; Onysko J; Shumak R; Smith NE; Wadden N
    Radiology; 2006 Mar; 238(3):809-15. PubMed ID: 16424236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. ACR BI-RADS Assessment Category 4 Subdivisions in Diagnostic Mammography: Utilization and Outcomes in the National Mammography Database.
    Elezaby M; Li G; Bhargavan-Chatfield M; Burnside ES; DeMartini WB
    Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):416-422. PubMed ID: 29315061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists.
    Sickles EA; Wolverton DE; Dee KE
    Radiology; 2002 Sep; 224(3):861-9. PubMed ID: 12202726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.
    Nederend J; Duijm LE; Louwman MW; Coebergh JW; Roumen RM; Lohle PN; Roukema JA; Rutten MJ; van Steenbergen LN; Ernst MF; Jansen FH; Plaisier ML; Hooijen MJ; Voogd AC
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jan; 50(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 24275518
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Detection and interval cancer rates during the transition from screen-film to digital mammography in population-based screening.
    Sankatsing VDV; Fracheboud J; de Munck L; Broeders MJM; van Ravesteyn NT; Heijnsdijk EAM; Verbeek ALM; Otten JDM; Pijnappel RM; Siesling S; de Koning HJ;
    BMC Cancer; 2018 Mar; 18(1):256. PubMed ID: 29506487
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study.
    Brem RF; Tabár L; Duffy SW; Inciardi MF; Guingrich JA; Hashimoto BE; Lander MR; Lapidus RL; Peterson MK; Rapelyea JA; Roux S; Schilling KJ; Shah BA; Torrente J; Wynn RT; Miller DP
    Radiology; 2015 Mar; 274(3):663-73. PubMed ID: 25329763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. Interval Breast Cancer Rates and Histopathologic Tumor Characteristics after False-Positive Findings at Mammography in a Population-based Screening Program.
    Hofvind S; Sagstad S; Sebuødegård S; Chen Y; Roman M; Lee CI
    Radiology; 2018 Apr; 287(1):58-67. PubMed ID: 29239711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. Reported mammographic density: film-screen versus digital acquisition.
    Harvey JA; Gard CC; Miglioretti DL; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BA; Onega TL;
    Radiology; 2013 Mar; 266(3):752-8. PubMed ID: 23249570
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 80. New mammography screening performance metrics based on the entire screening episode.
    Sprague BL; Miglioretti DL; Lee CI; Perry H; Tosteson AAN; Kerlikowske K
    Cancer; 2020 Jul; 126(14):3289-3296. PubMed ID: 32374471
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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