211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29509326)
1. Overweight women may require more frequent mammograms.
Printz C
Cancer; 2018 Mar; 124(6):1099. PubMed ID: 29509326
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population.
Aujero MP; Gavenonis SC; Benjamin R; Zhang Z; Holt JS
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):70-76. PubMed ID: 28221096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Mammograms: when and how often?
Dest VM
RN; 2004 Jun; 67(6):26-30; quiz 31. PubMed ID: 15317280
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns.
Onega T; Haas JS; Bitton A; Brackett C; Weiss J; Goodrich M; Harris K; Pyle S; Tosteson AN
Am J Manag Care; 2017 Jan; 23(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 28141929
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Factors Associated with False Positive Results on Screening Mammography in a Population of Predominantly Hispanic Women.
McGuinness JE; Ueng W; Trivedi MS; Yi HS; David R; Vanegas A; Vargas J; Sandoval R; Kukafka R; Crew KD
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2018 Apr; 27(4):446-453. PubMed ID: 29382701
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. How the USPSTF's Mammographic Screening Guidelines Should Be Interpreted.
Prasad V
Am J Med; 2017 Jul; 130(7):769-770. PubMed ID: 28344145
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. A Review of Breast Density Implications and Breast Cancer Screening.
Lian J; Li K
Clin Breast Cancer; 2020 Aug; 20(4):283-290. PubMed ID: 32334975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Compliance With Screening Mammography Guidelines After a False-Positive Mammogram.
Hardesty LA; Lind KE; Gutierrez EJ
J Am Coll Radiol; 2016 Sep; 13(9):1032-8. PubMed ID: 27233908
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The added value of mammography in different age-groups of women with and without BRCA mutation screened with breast MRI.
Vreemann S; van Zelst JCM; Schlooz-Vries M; Bult P; Hoogerbrugge N; Karssemeijer N; Gubern-Mérida A; Mann RM
Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Aug; 20(1):84. PubMed ID: 30075794
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Screening Mammography for Average-Risk Women: The Controversy and NCCN's Position.
Helvie MA; Bevers TB
J Natl Compr Canc Netw; 2018 Nov; 16(11):1398-1404. PubMed ID: 30442738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Benefits of the quality assured double and arbitration reading of mammograms in the early diagnosis of breast cancer in symptomatic women.
Waldmann A; Kapsimalakou S; Katalinic A; Grande-Nagel I; Stoeckelhuber BM; Fischer D; Barkhausen J; Vogt FM
Eur Radiol; 2012 May; 22(5):1014-22. PubMed ID: 22095439
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Localized mammographic density is associated with interval cancer and large breast cancer: a nested case-control study.
Strand F; Azavedo E; Hellgren R; Humphreys K; Eriksson M; Shepherd J; Hall P; Czene K
Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Jan; 21(1):8. PubMed ID: 30670066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.
Bevers TB; Helvie M; Bonaccio E; Calhoun KE; Daly MB; Farrar WB; Garber JE; Gray R; Greenberg CC; Greenup R; Hansen NM; Harris RE; Heerdt AS; Helsten T; Hodgkiss L; Hoyt TL; Huff JG; Jacobs L; Lehman CD; Monsees B; Niell BL; Parker CC; Pearlman M; Philpotts L; Shepardson LB; Smith ML; Stein M; Tumyan L; Williams C; Bergman MA; Kumar R
J Natl Compr Canc Netw; 2018 Nov; 16(11):1362-1389. PubMed ID: 30442736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Factors influencing breast density in Japanese women aged 40-49 in breast cancer screening mammography.
Kawahara M; Sato S; Ida Y; Watanabe M; Fujishima M; Ishii H; Hori K; Kanazawa S
Acta Med Okayama; 2013; 67(4):213-7. PubMed ID: 23970319
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The cumulative risk of false-positive results in the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program: updated results.
Roman M; Hubbard RA; Sebuodegard S; Miglioretti DL; Castells X; Hofvind S
Cancer; 2013 Nov; 119(22):3952-8. PubMed ID: 23963877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Gambler's Fallacy in Screening Mammography.
Callen AL; Lobach I; Mesina O; Marcus S; Joe BN; Sickles EA; Greenwood HI
J Am Coll Radiol; 2019 Jun; 16(6):830-833. PubMed ID: 30611683
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Radiologist interpretive volume and breast cancer screening accuracy in a Canadian organized screening program.
Théberge I; Chang SL; Vandal N; Daigle JM; Guertin MH; Pelletier E; Brisson J
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Mar; 106(3):djt461. PubMed ID: 24598715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Role of performance metrics in breast screening imaging - where are we and where should we be?
Cohen SL; Blanks RG; Jenkins J; Kearins O
Clin Radiol; 2018 Apr; 73(4):381-388. PubMed ID: 29395223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
