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 *

195 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32484237)

  • 1. Risk stratification in breast cancer screening: Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit ratios for low-risk and high-risk women.
    Sankatsing VDV; van Ravesteyn NT; Heijnsdijk EAM; Broeders MJM; de Koning HJ
    Int J Cancer; 2020 Dec; 147(11):3059-3067. PubMed ID: 32484237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes.
    Trentham-Dietz A; Kerlikowske K; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Schechter CB; Ergun MA; van den Broek JJ; Alagoz O; Sprague BL; van Ravesteyn NT; Near AM; Gangnon RE; Hampton JM; Chandler Y; de Koning HJ; Mandelblatt JS; Tosteson AN;
    Ann Intern Med; 2016 Nov; 165(10):700-712. PubMed ID: 27548583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.
    Trentham-Dietz A; Chapman CH; Jayasekera J; Lowry KP; Heckman-Stoddard BM; Hampton JM; Caswell-Jin JL; Gangnon RE; Lu Y; Huang H; Stein S; Sun L; Gil Quessep EJ; Yang Y; Lu Y; Song J; Muñoz DF; Li Y; Kurian AW; Kerlikowske K; O'Meara ES; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Feuer EJ; Berry D; Plevritis SK; Huang X; de Koning HJ; van Ravesteyn NT; Lee SJ; Alagoz O; Schechter CB; Stout NK; Miglioretti DL; Mandelblatt JS
    JAMA; 2024 Jun; 331(22):1947-1960. PubMed ID: 38687505
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.
    van Ravesteyn NT; Miglioretti DL; Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Buist DS; Huang H; Heijnsdijk EA; Trentham-Dietz A; Alagoz O; Near AM; Kerlikowske K; Nelson HD; Mandelblatt JS; de Koning HJ
    Ann Intern Med; 2012 May; 156(9):609-17. PubMed ID: 22547470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Finding the optimal mammography screening strategy: A cost-effectiveness analysis of 920 modelled strategies.
    Kregting LM; Sankatsing VDV; Heijnsdijk EAM; de Koning HJ; van Ravesteyn NT
    Int J Cancer; 2022 Jul; 151(2):287-296. PubMed ID: 35285018
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Breast Cancer Screening Using Mammography in Singapore: A Modeling Study.
    Chootipongchaivat S; Wong XY; Ten Haaf K; Hartman M; Tan KB; van Ravesteyn NT; Wee HL
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2021 Apr; 30(4):653-660. PubMed ID: 33531436
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Should women with a BRCA1/2 mutation aged 60 and older be offered intensified breast cancer screening? - A cost-effectiveness analysis.
    Phi XA; Greuter MJW; Obdeijn IM; Oosterwijk JC; Feenstra TL; Houssami N; de Bock GH
    Breast; 2019 Jun; 45():82-88. PubMed ID: 30904701
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Incorporating Baseline Breast Density When Screening Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer : A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
    Shih YT; Dong W; Xu Y; Etzioni R; Shen Y
    Ann Intern Med; 2021 May; 174(5):602-612. PubMed ID: 33556275
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. The cost-effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis in a population breast cancer screening program.
    Wang J; Phi XA; Greuter MJW; Daszczuk AM; Feenstra TL; Pijnappel RM; Vermeulen KM; Buls N; Houssami N; Lu W; de Bock GH
    Eur Radiol; 2020 Oct; 30(10):5437-5445. PubMed ID: 32382844
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Cost-effectiveness of abbreviated-protocol MRI screening for women with mammographically dense breasts in a national breast cancer screening program.
    Wang J; Greuter MJW; Vermeulen KM; Brokken FB; Dorrius MD; Lu W; de Bock GH
    Breast; 2022 Feb; 61():58-65. PubMed ID: 34915447
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. 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]  

  • 13. Disability-Adjusted Life Years Averted Versus Quality-Adjusted Life Years Gained: A Model Analysis for Breast Cancer Screening.
    Davidović M; Zielonke N; Lansdorp-Vogelaar I; Segnan N; de Koning HJ; Heijnsdijk EA
    Value Health; 2021 Mar; 24(3):353-360. PubMed ID: 33641769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Cost-effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Population-based Breast Cancer Screening: A Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis.
    Sankatsing VDV; Juraniec K; Grimm SE; Joore MA; Pijnappel RM; de Koning HJ; van Ravesteyn NT
    Radiology; 2020 Oct; 297(1):40-48. PubMed ID: 32749212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening for Women With Down Syndrome: a Collaborative Modeling Study.
    Alagoz O; Hajjar A; Chootipongchaivat S; van Ravesteyn NT; Yeh JM; Ergun MA; de Koning HJ; Chicoine B; Martin B
    J Gen Intern Med; 2019 Nov; 34(11):2374-2381. PubMed ID: 31385214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 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]  

  • 17. Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Updated Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Average-Risk Women.
    Tina Shih YC; Dong W; Xu Y; Shen Y
    Value Health; 2019 Feb; 22(2):185-193. PubMed ID: 30711063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20.
    ; ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.