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 *

121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 35073183)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. 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]  

  • 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. 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]  

  • 9. Performance of the IBIS/Tyrer-Cuzick model of breast cancer risk by race and ethnicity in the Women's Health Initiative.
    Kurian AW; Hughes E; Simmons T; Bernhisel R; Probst B; Meek S; Caswell-Jin JL; John EM; Lanchbury JS; Slavin TP; Wagner S; Gutin A; Rohan TE; Shadyab AH; Manson JE; Lane D; Chlebowski RT; Stefanick ML
    Cancer; 2021 Oct; 127(20):3742-3750. PubMed ID: 34228814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 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]  

  • 11. 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]  

  • 12. Comparison of Questionnaire-Based Breast Cancer Prediction Models in the Nurses' Health Study.
    Glynn RJ; Colditz GA; Tamimi RM; Chen WY; Hankinson SE; Willett WW; Rosner B
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2019 Jul; 28(7):1187-1194. PubMed ID: 31015199
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme.
    Amir E; Evans DG; Shenton A; Lalloo F; Moran A; Boggis C; Wilson M; Howell A
    J Med Genet; 2003 Nov; 40(11):807-14. PubMed ID: 14627668
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The Tyrer-Cuzick Model Inaccurately Predicts Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in Women With LCIS.
    Valero MG; Zabor EC; Park A; Gilbert E; Newman A; King TA; Pilewskie ML
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2020 Mar; 27(3):736-740. PubMed ID: 31559544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Inclusion of Endogenous Plasma Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate and Mammographic Density in Risk Prediction Models for Breast Cancer.
    Gabrielson M; Ubhayasekera KA; Acharya SR; Franko MA; Eriksson M; Bergquist J; Czene K; Hall P
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2020 Mar; 29(3):574-581. PubMed ID: 31948996
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry.
    Pal Choudhury P; Brook MN; Hurson AN; Lee A; Mulder CV; Coulson P; Schoemaker MJ; Jones ME; Swerdlow AJ; Chatterjee N; Antoniou AC; Garcia-Closas M
    Breast Cancer Res; 2021 Feb; 23(1):22. PubMed ID: 33588869
    [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. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Integrating Clinical and Polygenic Factors to Predict Breast Cancer Risk in Women Undergoing Genetic Testing.
    Hughes E; Tshiaba P; Wagner S; Judkins T; Rosenthal E; Roa B; Gallagher S; Meek S; Dalton K; Hedegard W; Adami CA; Grear DF; Domchek SM; Garber J; Lancaster JM; Weitzel JN; Kurian AW; Lanchbury JS; Gutin A; Robson ME
    JCO Precis Oncol; 2021; 5():. PubMed ID: 34036224
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.