These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

107 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29932767)

  • 1. Accurate Inputs for Costs and Benefits of Screening Mammography.
    Baker JA
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jul; 211(1):W80. PubMed ID: 29932767
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Insights Into Breast Cancer Screening: A Computer Simulation of Two Contemporary Screening Strategies.
    Carter KJ; Castro F; Morcos RN
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Mar; 210(3):564-571. PubMed ID: 29323554
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. On the Importance of Accurate Inputs and Assumptions for Screening Mammography Modeling.
    Carter KJ; Castro F; Morcos RN
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jul; 211(1):W82-W83. PubMed ID: 29932764
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.
    Sprague BL; Stout NK; Schechter C; van Ravesteyn NT; Cevik M; Alagoz O; Lee CI; van den Broek JJ; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS; de Koning HJ; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD; Tosteson AN
    Ann Intern Med; 2015 Feb; 162(3):157-66. PubMed ID: 25486550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic versus organised mammography screening in Switzerland.
    de Gelder R; Bulliard JL; de Wolf C; Fracheboud J; Draisma G; Schopper D; de Koning HJ
    Eur J Cancer; 2009 Jan; 45(1):127-38. PubMed ID: 19038540
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening policies using simulation.
    Gocgun Y; Banjevic D; Taghipour S; Montgomery N; Harvey BJ; Jardine AK; Miller AB
    Breast; 2015 Aug; 24(4):440-8. PubMed ID: 25866350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography screening before the age of 50 in The Netherlands.
    Sankatsing VD; Heijnsdijk EA; van Luijt PA; van Ravesteyn NT; Fracheboud J; de Koning HJ
    Int J Cancer; 2015 Oct; 137(8):1990-9. PubMed ID: 25895135
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A modelling study to evaluate the costs and effects of lowering the starting age of population breast cancer screening.
    Koleva-Kolarova RG; Daszczuk AM; de Jonge C; Abu Hantash MK; Zhan ZZ; Postema EJ; Feenstra TL; Pijnappel RM; Greuter MJW; de Bock GH
    Maturitas; 2018 Mar; 109():81-88. PubMed ID: 29452787
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Cost-effectiveness of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program.
    van Luijt PA; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
    Int J Cancer; 2017 Feb; 140(4):833-840. PubMed ID: 27861849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Total cost-effectiveness of mammography screening strategies.
    Mittmann N; Stout NK; Lee P; Tosteson AN; Trentham-Dietz A; Alagoz O; Yaffe MJ
    Health Rep; 2015 Dec; 26(12):16-25. PubMed ID: 26676235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Opportunity cost of annual screening mammography.
    Keen JD
    Cancer; 2018 Mar; 124(6):1297-1298. PubMed ID: 29266218
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Reply to Opportunity cost of annual screening mammography.
    Arleo EK; Hendrick RE; Helvie MA; Sickles EA
    Cancer; 2018 Mar; 124(6):1298-1299. PubMed ID: 29266244
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Annual Combined Mammography and Tomosynthesis Screening: Is It Really Cost-Effective?
    Lee CI; Lee JM; Tosteson AN
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2016 Nov; 207(5):1156-1158. PubMed ID: 27533738
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Impact of assumptions - the example of the Welch-analysis of mammography screening effectiveness.
    Lynge E; Beau AB; Lophaven S
    Acta Oncol; 2017 Aug; 56(8):1131-1133. PubMed ID: 28488450
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Cost-effectiveness analysis for breast cancer screening: double reading versus single + CAD reading.
    Sato M; Kawai M; Nishino Y; Shibuya D; Ohuchi N; Ishibashi T
    Breast Cancer; 2014 Sep; 21(5):532-41. PubMed ID: 23104393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mammography screening for breast cancer.
    Wiwanitkit V
    Maturitas; 2010 Aug; 66(4):435. PubMed ID: 20541879
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging.
    Plevritis SK; Kurian AW; Sigal BM; Daniel BL; Ikeda DM; Stockdale FE; Garber AM
    JAMA; 2006 May; 295(20):2374-84. PubMed ID: 16720823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Women aged 75 years and older benefit from mammography.
    Printz C
    Cancer; 2015 Jan; 121(2):165. PubMed ID: 25581117
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Overestimation of the Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Based Mammography Screening in the United Kingdom.
    Autier P
    JAMA Oncol; 2019 Mar; 5(3):428. PubMed ID: 30653221
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.
    Saadatmand S; Tilanus-Linthorst MM; Rutgers EJ; Hoogerbrugge N; Oosterwijk JC; Tollenaar RA; Hooning M; Loo CE; Obdeijn IM; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Sep; 105(17):1314-21. PubMed ID: 23940285
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.