211 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34324686)
21. Cost-Effectiveness of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening for Women With Extremely Dense Breast Tissue.
Geuzinge HA; Bakker MF; Heijnsdijk EAM; van Ravesteyn NT; Veldhuis WB; Pijnappel RM; de Lange SV; Emaus MJ; Mann RM; Monninkhof EM; de Koekkoek-Doll PK; van Gils CH; de Koning HJ;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2021 Nov; 113(11):1476-1483. PubMed ID: 34585249
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.
Saadatmand S; Tilanus-Linthorst MM; Rutgers EJ; Hoogerbrugge N; Oosterwijk JC; Tollenaar RA; Hooning M; Loo CE; Obdeijn IM; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2013 Sep; 105(17):1314-21. PubMed ID: 23940285
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Cost-effectiveness of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program.
van Luijt PA; Heijnsdijk EA; de Koning HJ
Int J Cancer; 2017 Feb; 140(4):833-840. PubMed ID: 27861849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers.
Lee JM; McMahon PM; Kong CY; Kopans DB; Ryan PD; Ozanne EM; Halpern EF; Gazelle GS
Radiology; 2010 Mar; 254(3):793-800. PubMed ID: 20177093
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population.
Moore SG; Shenoy PJ; Fanucchi L; Tumeh JW; Flowers CR
BMC Health Serv Res; 2009 Jan; 9():9. PubMed ID: 19144138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different surveillance mammography regimens after the treatment for primary breast cancer: systematic reviews registry database analyses and economic evaluation.
Robertson C; Arcot Ragupathy SK; Boachie C; Dixon JM; Fraser C; Hernández R; Heys S; Jack W; Kerr GR; Lawrence G; MacLennan G; Maxwell A; McGregor J; Mowatt G; Pinder S; Ternent L; Thomas RE; Vale L; Wilson R; Zhu S; Gilbert FJ
Health Technol Assess; 2011 Sep; 15(34):v-vi, 1-322. PubMed ID: 21951942
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Total cost-effectiveness of mammography screening strategies.
Mittmann N; Stout NK; Lee P; Tosteson AN; Trentham-Dietz A; Alagoz O; Yaffe MJ
Health Rep; 2015 Dec; 26(12):16-25. PubMed ID: 26676235
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Promoting Breast Cancer Surveillance: The EMPOWER Study, a Randomized Clinical Trial in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.
Oeffinger KC; Ford JS; Moskowitz CS; Chou JF; Henderson TO; Hudson MM; Diller L; McDonald A; Ford J; Mubdi NZ; Rinehart D; Vukadinovich C; Gibson TM; Anderson N; Elkin EB; Garrett K; Rebull M; Leisenring W; Robison LL; Armstrong GT
J Clin Oncol; 2019 Aug; 37(24):2131-2140. PubMed ID: 31260642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.
Pharoah PD; Sewell B; Fitzsimmons D; Bennett HS; Pashayan N
BMJ; 2013 May; 346():f2618. PubMed ID: 23661112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening programme, China.
Sun L; Legood R; Sadique Z; Dos-Santos-Silva I; Yang L
Bull World Health Organ; 2018 Aug; 96(8):568-577. PubMed ID: 30104797
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. 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]
34. Evaluation of a Stratified National Breast Screening Program in the United Kingdom: An Early Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Gray E; Donten A; Karssemeijer N; van Gils C; Evans DG; Astley S; Payne K
Value Health; 2017 Sep; 20(8):1100-1109. PubMed ID: 28964442
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. The cost-effectiveness of adding tomosynthesis to mammography-based breast cancer screening: an economic analysis.
Cressman S; Mar C; Sam J; Kan L; Lohrisch C; Spinelli JJ
CMAJ Open; 2021; 9(2):E443-E450. PubMed ID: 33888549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density.
Pataky R; Ismail Z; Coldman AJ; Elwood M; Gelmon K; Hedden L; Hislop G; Kan L; McCoy B; Olivotto IA; Peacock S
J Med Screen; 2014 Dec; 21(4):180-8. PubMed ID: 25186116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography.
Stout NK; Lee SJ; Schechter CB; Kerlikowske K; Alagoz O; Berry D; Buist DS; Cevik M; Chisholm G; de Koning HJ; Huang H; Hubbard RA; Miglioretti DL; Munsell MF; Trentham-Dietz A; van Ravesteyn NT; Tosteson AN; Mandelblatt JS
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Jun; 106(6):dju092. PubMed ID: 24872543
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Routine echocardiography screening for asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors: a model-based estimation of the clinical and economic effects.
Yeh JM; Nohria A; Diller L
Ann Intern Med; 2014 May; 160(10):661-71. PubMed ID: 24842413
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. 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]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
