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.
233 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30572782)
1. Breast cancer subtype and screening sensitivity in the Quebec Mammography Screening Program. Perron L; Chang SL; Daigle JM; Vandal N; Theberge I; Diorio C; Lemieux J; Pelletier E; Brisson J J Med Screen; 2019 Sep; 26(3):154-161. PubMed ID: 30572782 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Physicians discuss ramifications of studies pointing to breast cancer overdiagnosis: New research under way attempts to better define who should be screened and treated. Printz C Cancer; 2017 Dec; 123(23):4525-4527. PubMed ID: 29149513 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Test sensitivity of mammography and mean sojourn time over 40 years of breast cancer screening in Nijmegen (The Netherlands). Aarts A; Duffy SW; Geurts S; Vulkan DP; Otten J; Hsu CY; Chen T; Verbeek A; Broeders M J Med Screen; 2019 Sep; 26(3):147-153. PubMed ID: 30541383 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in a population-based breast cancer screening programme (To-Be): a randomised, controlled trial. Hofvind S; Holen ÅS; Aase HS; Houssami N; Sebuødegård S; Moger TA; Haldorsen IS; Akslen LA Lancet Oncol; 2019 Jun; 20(6):795-805. PubMed ID: 31078459 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Variation in Breast Cancer-Risk Factor Associations by Method of Detection: Results From a Series of Case-Control Studies. Sprague BL; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Egan KM; Titus LJ; Kerlikowske K; Remington PL; Newcomb PA; Trentham-Dietz A Am J Epidemiol; 2015 Jun; 181(12):956-69. PubMed ID: 25944893 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Sensitivity of screening mammography by density and texture: a cohort study from a population-based screening program in Denmark. von Euler-Chelpin M; Lillholm M; Vejborg I; Nielsen M; Lynge E Breast Cancer Res; 2019 Oct; 21(1):111. PubMed ID: 31623646 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening caused rising incidence rates of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. van Steenbergen LN; Voogd AC; Roukema JA; Louwman WJ; Duijm LE; Coebergh JW; van de Poll-Franse LV Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2009 May; 115(1):181-3. PubMed ID: 18516674 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A comparison of clinical-pathological characteristics between symptomatic and interval breast cancer. Meshkat B; Prichard RS; Al-Hilli Z; Bass GA; Quinn C; O'Doherty A; Rothwell J; Geraghty J; Evoy D; McDermott EW Breast; 2015 Jun; 24(3):278-82. PubMed ID: 25771080 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Ductal carcinomas in situ and invasive cancers detected on screening mammography: Cost-effectiveness of initial and subsequent rounds of population-based program 2007-2014. Szynglarewicz B; Matkowski R Adv Clin Exp Med; 2017; 26(2):259-262. PubMed ID: 28791843 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Balancing sensitivity and specificity: sixteen year's of experience from the mammography screening programme in Copenhagen, Denmark. Utzon-Frank N; Vejborg I; von Euler-Chelpin M; Lynge E Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 35(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 21239242 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Overcalling low-risk findings: grouped amorphous calcifications found at screening mammography associated with minimal cancer risk. Iwase M; Tsunoda H; Nakayama K; Morishita E; Hayashi N; Suzuki K; Yamauchi H Breast Cancer; 2017 Jul; 24(4):579-584. PubMed ID: 27873170 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Shotgun proteomics coupled to nanoparticle-based biomarker enrichment reveals a novel panel of extracellular matrix proteins as candidate serum protein biomarkers for early-stage breast cancer detection. Fredolini C; Pathak KV; Paris L; Chapple KM; Tsantilas KA; Rosenow M; Tegeler TJ; Garcia-Mansfield K; Tamburro D; Zhou W; Russo P; Massarut S; Facchiano F; Belluco C; De Maria R; Garaci E; Liotta L; Petricoin EF; Pirrotte P Breast Cancer Res; 2020 Dec; 22(1):135. PubMed ID: 33267867 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. Riedl CC; Luft N; Bernhart C; Weber M; Bernathova M; Tea MK; Rudas M; Singer CF; Helbich TH J Clin Oncol; 2015 Apr; 33(10):1128-35. PubMed ID: 25713430 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. [Comparative analysis of early diagnostic tools for breast cancer]. Shen SJ; Sun Q; Xu YL; Zhou YD; Guan JH; Mao F; Lin Y; Wang XJ; Han SM Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi; 2012 Nov; 34(11):877-80. PubMed ID: 23291142 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Digital mammography screening in Germany: Impact of age and histological subtype on program sensitivity. Heidinger O; Heidrich J; Batzler WU; Krieg V; Weigel S; Heindel W; Hense HW Breast; 2015 Jun; 24(3):191-6. PubMed ID: 25687106 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Mammography Coverage and Tumor Stage in the Opportunistic Screening Context. Magario MB; Poli-Neto OB; Tiezzi DG; Angotti Carrara HH; Moreira de Andrade J; Candido Dos Reis FJ Clin Breast Cancer; 2019 Dec; 19(6):456-459. PubMed ID: 31133460 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update. Fuller MS; Lee CI; Elmore JG Med Clin North Am; 2015 May; 99(3):451-68. PubMed ID: 25841594 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. MRI of the breast as part of the assessment in population-based mammography screening. Bick U; Engelken F; Diederichs G; Dzyuballa R; Ortmann M; Fallenberg EM Rofo; 2013 Sep; 185(9):849-56. PubMed ID: 23740312 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Measuring height and weight as part of routine mammographic screening for breast cancer. Darcey E; Ambati R; Lund H; Redfern A; Saunders C; Thompson S; Wylie E; Stone J J Med Screen; 2019 Dec; 26(4):204-211. PubMed ID: 31288600 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]