327 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29506487)
21. Interval cancer rates in the Irish national breast screening programme.
O'Brien KM; Dwane F; Kelleher T; Sharp L; Comber H
J Med Screen; 2015 Sep; 22(3):136-43. PubMed ID: 25917389
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Digital compared with screen-film mammography: performance measures in concurrent cohorts within an organized breast screening program.
Chiarelli AM; Edwards SA; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Majpruz V; Done SJ; Brown P; Shumak RS; Yaffe MJ
Radiology; 2013 Sep; 268(3):684-93. PubMed ID: 23674784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.
Farber R; Houssami N; Wortley S; Jacklyn G; Marinovich ML; McGeechan K; Barratt A; Bell K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2021 Jan; 113(1):16-26. PubMed ID: 32572492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Recall and Outcome of Screen-detected Microcalcifications during 2 Decades of Mammography Screening in the Netherlands National Breast Screening Program.
Luiten JD; Voogd AC; Luiten EJT; Broeders MJM; Roes KCB; Tjan-Heijnen VCG; Duijm LEM
Radiology; 2020 Mar; 294(3):528-537. PubMed ID: 31990268
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Interval and Consecutive Round Breast Cancer after Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Synthetic 2D Mammography versus Standard 2D Digital Mammography in BreastScreen Norway.
Hovda T; Holen ÅS; Lång K; Albertsen JL; Bjørndal H; Brandal SHB; Sahlberg KK; Skaane P; Suhrke P; Hofvind S
Radiology; 2020 Feb; 294(2):256-264. PubMed ID: 31821118
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Mammographic performance in a population-based screening program: before, during, and after the transition from screen-film to full-field digital mammography.
Hofvind S; Skaane P; Elmore JG; Sebuødegård S; Hoff SR; Lee CI
Radiology; 2014 Jul; 272(1):52-62. PubMed ID: 24689858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program--the Oslo II Study.
Skaane P; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2004 Jul; 232(1):197-204. PubMed ID: 15155893
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study.
Skaane P; Hofvind S; Skjennald A
Radiology; 2007 Sep; 244(3):708-17. PubMed ID: 17709826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening programme: a cohort study.
Zahl PH; Gøtzsche PC; Mæhlen J
Lancet Oncol; 2011 Nov; 12(12):1118-24. PubMed ID: 21996169
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Digital Mammography versus Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer Screening: The Reggio Emilia Tomosynthesis Randomized Trial.
Pattacini P; Nitrosi A; Giorgi Rossi P; Iotti V; Ginocchi V; Ravaioli S; Vacondio R; Braglia L; Cavuto S; Campari C;
Radiology; 2018 Aug; 288(2):375-385. PubMed ID: 29869961
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Characteristics and prognosis of interval cancers after biennial screen-film or full-field digital screening mammography.
Weber RJ; van Bommel RM; Louwman MW; Nederend J; Voogd AC; Jansen FH; Tjan-Heijnen VC; Duijm LE
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2016 Aug; 158(3):471-83. PubMed ID: 27393617
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Effect of Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening: A Comparative Study of More than 8 Million Korean Women.
Hong S; Song SY; Park B; Suh M; Choi KS; Jung SE; Kim MJ; Lee EH; Lee CW; Jun JK
Radiology; 2020 Feb; 294(2):247-255. PubMed ID: 31793847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: a prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands.
Klompenhouwer EG; Voogd AC; den Heeten GJ; Strobbe LJ; de Haan AF; Wauters CA; Broeders MJ; Duijm LE
Eur J Cancer; 2015 Feb; 51(3):391-9. PubMed ID: 25573788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Effect of Different Types of Mammography Equipment on Screening Outcomes: A Report by the Alliance for Breast Cancer Screening in Korea.
Choi BH; Lee EH; Jun JK; Kim KW; Park YM; Kim HW; Kim YM; Shin DR; Lim HS; Park JS; Kim HJ;
Korean J Radiol; 2019 Dec; 20(12):1638-1645. PubMed ID: 31854151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Digital versus screen-film mammography: impact of mammographic density and hormone therapy on breast cancer detection.
Chiarelli AM; Prummel MV; Muradali D; Shumak RS; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Done SJ; Yaffe MJ
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Nov; 154(2):377-87. PubMed ID: 26518019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. The impact of digital mammography on screening a young cohort of women for breast cancer in an urban specialist breast unit.
Perry NM; Patani N; Milner SE; Pinker K; Mokbel K; Allgood PC; Duffy SW
Eur Radiol; 2011 Apr; 21(4):676-82. PubMed ID: 20886340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Interval breast cancers in the 'screening with tomosynthesis or standard mammography' (STORM) population-based trial.
Houssami N; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Brunelli S; Fantò C; Valentini M; Romanucci G; Gentilini MA; Zorzi M; Macaskill P
Breast; 2018 Apr; 38():150-153. PubMed ID: 29328943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Digital mammography in a screening programme and its implications for pathology: a comparative study.
Feeley L; Kiernan D; Mooney T; Flanagan F; Hargaden G; Kell M; Stokes M; Kennedy M
J Clin Pathol; 2011 Mar; 64(3):215-9. PubMed ID: 21177749
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Attending the breast screening programme after breast cancer treatment: a population-based study.
de Munck L; Kwast A; Reiding D; de Bock GH; Otter R; Willemse PH; Siesling S
Cancer Epidemiol; 2013 Dec; 37(6):968-72. PubMed ID: 24075800
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
