128 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33007526)
1. Comparison of mammography results from individual and organized screening for breast cancer.
Tron A; Caulliez S; Malmartel A
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod; 2021 May; 50(5):101926. PubMed ID: 33007526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Accuracy of clinical breast examination's abnormalities for breast cancer screening: cross-sectional study.
Malmartel A; Tron A; Caulliez S
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; 2019 Jun; 237():1-6. PubMed ID: 30974372
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Cross-Sectional Observational Study to Compare the Role of Ultrasound with Mammography in Women Identified at High Risk for Breast Cancer in a Population in China.
An P; Zhong S; Zhang R; Hou X; Xi R; Wang Y
Med Sci Monit; 2020 Jun; 26():e919777. PubMed ID: 32576809
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Evaluation of the applicability of BI-RADS® MRI for the interpretation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography.
Travieso-Aja MM; Maldonado-Saluzzi D; Naranjo-Santana P; Fernández-Ruiz C; Severino-Rondón W; Rodríguez Rodríguez M; Luzardo OP
Radiologia (Engl Ed); 2019; 61(6):477-488. PubMed ID: 31262509
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.
Schousboe JT; Kerlikowske K; Loh A; Cummings SR
Ann Intern Med; 2011 Jul; 155(1):10-20. PubMed ID: 21727289
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Analysis for the breast cancer screening among urban populations in China, 2012-2013].
Mi ZH; Ren JS; Zhang HZ; Li J; Wang Y; Fang Y; Shi JF; Zhang K; Zhao JB; Dai M
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Oct; 50(10):887-892. PubMed ID: 27686767
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. [Analysis of the results of mammography screening in Dubrovnik-Neretva County in the 2006-2009 period].
Dzono-Boban A; Mratović MC; Masanović M
Acta Med Croatica; 2010 Dec; 64(5):453-9. PubMed ID: 21692270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Lesion and patient characteristics associated with malignancy after a probably benign finding on community practice mammography.
Lehman CD; Rutter CM; Eby PR; White E; Buist DS; Taplin SH
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2008 Feb; 190(2):511-5. PubMed ID: 18212240
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mammography in asymptomatic women aged 40-49 years.
Silva FX; Katz L; Souza AS; Amorim MM
Rev Saude Publica; 2014 Dec; 48(6):931-9. PubMed ID: 26039396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.
Kerlikowske K; Carney PA; Geller B; Mandelson MT; Taplin SH; Malvin K; Ernster V; Urban N; Cutter G; Rosenberg R; Ballard-Barbash R
Ann Intern Med; 2000 Dec; 133(11):855-63. PubMed ID: 11103055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Late-stage breast cancer among women with recent negative screening mammography: do clinical encounters offer opportunity for earlier detection?
Mouchawar J; Taplin S; Ichikawa L; Barlow WE; Geiger AM; Weinmann S; Gilbert J; Manos MM; Ulcickas Yood M
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 2005; (35):39-46. PubMed ID: 16287884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Use of BI-RADS 3-probably benign category in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial.
Baum JK; Hanna LG; Acharyya S; Mahoney MC; Conant EF; Bassett LW; Pisano ED
Radiology; 2011 Jul; 260(1):61-7. PubMed ID: 21502382
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Population-Based Breast Cancer Screening With Risk-Based and Universal Mammography Screening Compared With Clinical Breast Examination: A Propensity Score Analysis of 1 429 890 Taiwanese Women.
Yen AM; Tsau HS; Fann JC; Chen SL; Chiu SY; Lee YC; Pan SL; Chiu HM; Kuo WH; Chang KJ; Wu YY; Chuang SL; Hsu CY; Chang DC; Koong SL; Wu CY; Chia SL; Chen MJ; Chen HH; Chiou ST
JAMA Oncol; 2016 Jul; 2(7):915-21. PubMed ID: 27030951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Breast lesion detection and classification: comparison of screen-film mammography and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading--observer performance study.
Skaane P; Balleyguier C; Diekmann F; Diekmann S; Piguet JC; Young K; Niklason LT
Radiology; 2005 Oct; 237(1):37-44. PubMed ID: 16100086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Automated and Clinical Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Density Measures Predict Risk for Screen-Detected and Interval Cancers: A Case-Control Study.
Kerlikowske K; Scott CG; Mahmoudzadeh AP; Ma L; Winham S; Jensen MR; Wu FF; Malkov S; Pankratz VS; Cummings SR; Shepherd JA; Brandt KR; Miglioretti DL; Vachon CM
Ann Intern Med; 2018 Jun; 168(11):757-765. PubMed ID: 29710124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. [Early results of breast cancer screening research].
Nowicki A; Stogowska I
Ginekol Pol; 2007 Jun; 78(6):464-70. PubMed ID: 17899703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Women with abnormal screening mammography lost to follow-up: An experience from Taiwan.
Kuo CS; Chen GR; Hung SH; Liu YL; Huang KC; Cheng SY
Medicine (Baltimore); 2016 Jun; 95(24):e3889. PubMed ID: 27310983
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.
Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Eaton A; Ernster V
JAMA; 1993 Nov; 270(20):2444-50. PubMed ID: 8230621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Benign breast diseases in breast cancer screening programs in Italy (2000-2001).
Fabbri S; Perfetti E; Govoni D; Bianchi S; Brancato B; Paci E;
Tumori; 2004; 90(6):547-9. PubMed ID: 15762354
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
