170 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30887204)
21. Time trends of process and impact indicators in Italian mammography screening programmes--1996-2004.
Giordano L; Giorgi D; Piccini P; Ventura L; Stefanini V; Senore C; Paci E; Segnan N
Epidemiol Prev; 2007; 31(2-3 Suppl 2):21-32. PubMed ID: 17824360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain.
Domingo L; Romero A; Belvis F; Sánchez M; Ferrer J; Salas D; Ibáñez J; Vega A; Ferrer F; Laso MS; Macià F; Castells X; Sala M
Eur Radiol; 2011 Sep; 21(9):2020-8. PubMed ID: 21560024
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography.
Weaver DL; Rosenberg RD; Barlow WE; Ichikawa L; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BM; Key CR; Maygarden SJ; Ballard-Barbash R
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 106(4):732-42. PubMed ID: 16411214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Five-year risk of interval-invasive second breast cancer.
Lee JM; Buist DS; Houssami N; Dowling EC; Halpern EF; Gazelle GS; Lehman CD; Henderson LM; Hubbard RA
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Jul; 107(7):. PubMed ID: 25904721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Referral policy and positive predictive value of call for surgical biopsy in the Florence Breast Cancer Screening Program.
Ciatto S; Cecchini S; del Turco MR; Grazzini G; Iossa A; Bartoli D
J Clin Epidemiol; 1990; 43(5):419-23. PubMed ID: 2182788
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of Resource Utilization and Clinical Outcomes Following Screening with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography: Findings From a Learning Health System.
Alsheik NH; Dabbous F; Pohlman SK; Troeger KM; Gliklich RE; Donadio GM; Su Z; Menon V; Conant EF
Acad Radiol; 2019 May; 26(5):597-605. PubMed ID: 30057195
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50.
Winch CJ; Sherman KA; Boyages J
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2015 Jan; 149(1):211-21. PubMed ID: 25476499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. Time trends of process and impact indicators in Italian breast screening programmes--1996-2005.
Giordano L; Giorgi D; Piccini P; Ventura L; Stefanini V; Senore C; Paci E; Segnan N
Epidemiol Prev; 2008; 32(2 Suppl 1):23-36. PubMed ID: 18770993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies from Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Israel, Lithuania, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.
Sardanelli F; Aase HS; Álvarez M; Azavedo E; Baarslag HJ; Balleyguier C; Baltzer PA; Beslagic V; Bick U; Bogdanovic-Stojanovic D; Briediene R; Brkljacic B; Camps Herrero J; Colin C; Cornford E; Danes J; de Geer G; Esen G; Evans A; Fuchsjaeger MH; Gilbert FJ; Graf O; Hargaden G; Helbich TH; Heywang-Köbrunner SH; Ivanov V; Jónsson Á; Kuhl CK; Lisencu EC; Luczynska E; Mann RM; Marques JC; Martincich L; Mortier M; Müller-Schimpfle M; Ormandi K; Panizza P; Pediconi F; Pijnappel RM; Pinker K; Rissanen T; Rotaru N; Saguatti G; Sella T; Slobodníková J; Talk M; Taourel P; Trimboli RM; Vejborg I; Vourtsis A; Forrai G
Eur Radiol; 2017 Jul; 27(7):2737-2743. PubMed ID: 27807699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Early evaluation of an organised mammography screening program in Greece 2004-2009.
Simou E; Tsimitselis D; Tsopanlioti M; Anastasakis I; Papatheodorou D; Kourlaba G; Gerasimos P; Maniadakis N
Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Aug; 35(4):375-80. PubMed ID: 21474412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Mammography screening in Italy: 2004 survey and 2005 preliminary data.
Giorgi D; Giordano L; Ventura L; Frigerio A; Paci E; Zappa M
Epidemiol Prev; 2007; 31(2-3 Suppl 2):7-20. PubMed ID: 17824359
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Effect of organised mammography screening on stage-specific incidence in Norway: population study.
Lousdal ML; Kristiansen IS; Møller B; Støvring H
Br J Cancer; 2016 Mar; 114(5):590-6. PubMed ID: 26835975
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. What Happens after a Diagnosis of High-Risk Breast Lesion at Stereotactic Vacuum-assisted Biopsy? An Observational Study of Postdiagnosis Management and Imaging Adherence.
Gao Y; Albert M; Young Lin LL; Lewin AA; Babb JS; Heller SL; Moy L
Radiology; 2018 May; 287(2):423-431. PubMed ID: 29378151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Tomosynthesis Impact on Breast Cancer Screening in Patients Younger Than 50 Years Old.
Rose SL; Shisler JL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Jun; 210(6):1401-1404. PubMed ID: 29629810
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. 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]
38. Integrating self-referral for mammography into organised screening: results from an Italian experience.
Bucchi L; Falcini F; Baraldi GP; Bondi A; Bonsanto R; Bravetti P; Desiderio F; de Bianchi PS
J Med Screen; 2003; 10(3):134-8. PubMed ID: 14561265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Clinical outcomes of mammography in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 2009-2012.
White A; Miller J; Royalty J; Ryerson AB; Benard V; Helsel W; Kammerer W
Cancer Causes Control; 2015 May; 26(5):723-32. PubMed ID: 25809209
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.
Mandelblatt JS; Stout NK; Schechter CB; van den Broek JJ; Miglioretti DL; Krapcho M; Trentham-Dietz A; Munoz D; Lee SJ; Berry DA; van Ravesteyn NT; Alagoz O; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Near AM; Hoeffken A; Chang Y; Heijnsdijk EA; Chisholm G; Huang X; Huang H; Ergun MA; Gangnon R; Sprague BL; Plevritis S; Feuer E; de Koning HJ; Cronin KA
Ann Intern Med; 2016 Feb; 164(4):215-25. PubMed ID: 26756606
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
