203 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33978450)
1. Distribution of Estimated Lifetime Breast Cancer Risk Among Women Undergoing Screening Mammography.
Niell BL; Augusto B; McIntyre M; Conley CC; Gerke T; Roetzheim R; Garcia J; Vadaparampil ST
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2021 Jul; 217(1):48-55. PubMed ID: 33978450
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.
Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Buist DSM; Bowles EJA
JAMA Oncol; 2018 Sep; 4(9):e180174. PubMed ID: 29621362
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Performance of Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Models in a Large Mammography Cohort.
McCarthy AM; Guan Z; Welch M; Griffin ME; Sippo DA; Deng Z; Coopey SB; Acar A; Semine A; Parmigiani G; Braun D; Hughes KS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2020 May; 112(5):489-497. PubMed ID: 31556450
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Mammographic density adds accuracy to both the Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail breast cancer risk models in a prospective UK screening cohort.
Brentnall AR; Harkness EF; Astley SM; Donnelly LS; Stavrinos P; Sampson S; Fox L; Sergeant JC; Harvie MN; Wilson M; Beetles U; Gadde S; Lim Y; Jain A; Bundred S; Barr N; Reece V; Howell A; Cuzick J; Evans DG
Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Dec; 17(1):147. PubMed ID: 26627479
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Variation in Breast Cancer Risk Model Estimates Among Women in Their 40s Seen in Primary Care.
Schonberg MA; Karamourtopoulos M; Pinheiro A; Davis RB; Sternberg SB; Mehta TS; Gilliam EA; Tung NM
J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2022 Apr; 31(4):495-502. PubMed ID: 35073183
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Use of Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve Analysis for Tyrer-Cuzick and Gail in Breast Cancer Screening in Jiangxi Province, China.
Zhang L; Jie Z; Xu S; Zhang L; Guo X
Med Sci Monit; 2018 Aug; 24():5528-5532. PubMed ID: 30089770
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative Analysis between the Gail, Tyrer-Cuzick and BRCAPRO Models for Breast Cancer Screening in Brazilian Population.
Stevanato KP; Pedroso RB; Iora P; Santos LD; Pelloso FC; Melo WA; Carvalho MDB; Pelloso SM
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2019 Nov; 20(11):3407-3413. PubMed ID: 31759366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Estimated breast cancer risk and screening outcomes among premenopausal women with non-cyclic mastalgia.
Rogulski L; Bińczyk J
Ginekol Pol; 2013 Sep; 84(9):754-7. PubMed ID: 24191512
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The impact of patient age on breast cancer risk prediction models.
Coopey SB; Acar A; Griffin M; Cintolo-Gonzalez J; Semine A; Hughes KS
Breast J; 2018 Jul; 24(4):592-598. PubMed ID: 29316072
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Breast cancer risk assessment in 64,659 women at a single high-volume mammography clinic.
Brinton JT; Barke LD; Freivogel ME; Jackson S; O'Donnell CI; Glueck DH
Acad Radiol; 2012 Jan; 19(1):95-9. PubMed ID: 22054804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. A Deep Learning Mammography-based Model for Improved Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.
Yala A; Lehman C; Schuster T; Portnoi T; Barzilay R
Radiology; 2019 Jul; 292(1):60-66. PubMed ID: 31063083
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women.
Venturini E; Losio C; Panizza P; Rodighiero MG; Fedele I; Tacchini S; Schiani E; Ravelli S; Cristel G; Panzeri MM; De Cobelli F; Del Maschio A
Radiology; 2013 Aug; 268(2):347-55. PubMed ID: 23579052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessing the breast cancer risk distribution for women undergoing screening in British Columbia.
Weisstock CR; Rajapakshe R; Bitgood C; McAvoy S; Gordon PB; Coldman AJ; Parker BA; Wilson C
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2013 Oct; 6(10):1084-92. PubMed ID: 23963801
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of the Tyrer-Cuzick (International Breast Cancer Intervention Study) model for breast cancer risk prediction in women with atypical hyperplasia.
Boughey JC; Hartmann LC; Anderson SS; Degnim AC; Vierkant RA; Reynolds CA; Frost MH; Pankratz VS
J Clin Oncol; 2010 Aug; 28(22):3591-6. PubMed ID: 20606088
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Impact of adding breast density to breast cancer risk models: A systematic review.
Vilmun BM; Vejborg I; Lynge E; Lillholm M; Nielsen M; Nielsen MB; Carlsen JF
Eur J Radiol; 2020 Jun; 127():109019. PubMed ID: 32361308
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Compliance with screening recommendations according to breast cancer risk levels in Izmir, Turkey.
Acikgoz A; Ergor G
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev; 2013; 14(3):1737-42. PubMed ID: 23679266
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The Value of Tyrer-Cuzick Versus Gail Risk Modeling in Predicting Benefit from Screening MRI in Breast Cancer.
Sevdalis A; Deng X; Bandyopadhyay D; McGuire KP
Eur J Breast Health; 2022 Jan; 18(1):79-84. PubMed ID: 35059595
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Prospective breast cancer risk prediction model for women undergoing screening mammography.
Barlow WE; White E; Ballard-Barbash R; Vacek PM; Titus-Ernstoff L; Carney PA; Tice JA; Buist DS; Geller BM; Rosenberg R; Yankaskas BC; Kerlikowske K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2006 Sep; 98(17):1204-14. PubMed ID: 16954473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Performance of the Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk assessment models in women screened in a primary care setting with the FHS-7 questionnaire.
Vianna FSL; Giacomazzi J; Oliveira Netto CB; Nunes LN; Caleffi M; Ashton-Prolla P; Camey SA
Genet Mol Biol; 2019; 42(1 suppl 1):232-237. PubMed ID: 31170278
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Utilization of breast cancer screening with magnetic resonance imaging in community practice.
Hill DA; Haas JS; Wellman R; Hubbard RA; Lee CI; Alford-Teaster J; Wernli KJ; Henderson LM; Stout NK; Tosteson ANA; Kerlikowske K; Onega T
J Gen Intern Med; 2018 Mar; 33(3):275-283. PubMed ID: 29214373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
