190 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 36429373)
1. Considerations for Evaluating the Introduction of New Cancer Screening Technology: Use of Interval Cancers to Assess Potential Benefits and Harms.
Farber R; Houssami N; Barnes I; McGeechan K; Barratt A; Bell KJL
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Nov; 19(22):. PubMed ID: 36429373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of Full-Field Digital Mammography Versus Film-Screen Mammography in Population Screening: A Meta-Analysis.
Farber R; Houssami N; Wortley S; Jacklyn G; Marinovich ML; McGeechan K; Barratt A; Bell K
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2021 Jan; 113(1):16-26. PubMed ID: 32572492
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Readmissions and complications in breast ductal carcinoma in situ: A retrospective study comparing screen- and non-screen-detected patients.
Politi J; Sala M; Domingo L; Vernet-Tomas M; Román M; Macià F; Castells X
Womens Health (Lond); 2020; 16():1745506520965899. PubMed ID: 33076785
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Cancer screening with digital mammography for women at average risk for breast cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for women at high risk: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2010; 10(3):1-55. PubMed ID: 23074406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Comparison of direct digital mammography, computed radiography, and film-screen in the French national breast cancer screening program.
Séradour B; Heid P; Estève J
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Jan; 202(1):229-36. PubMed ID: 24370149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation.
Bernardi D; Gentilini MA; De Nisi M; Pellegrini M; Fantò C; Valentini M; Sabatino V; Luparia A; Houssami N
Breast; 2020 Apr; 50():135-140. PubMed ID: 31607526
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Digital compared to screen-film mammography: breast cancer prognostic features in an organized screening program.
Prummel MV; Done SJ; Muradali D; Majpruz V; Brown P; Jiang H; Shumak RS; Yaffe MJ; Holloway CM; Chiarelli AM
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2014 Sep; 147(2):389-99. PubMed ID: 25108740
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screening outcome for consecutive examinations with digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard digital mammography in a population-based screening program.
Hovda T; Brandal SHB; Sebuødegård S; Holen ÅS; Bjørndal H; Skaane P; Hofvind S
Eur Radiol; 2019 Dec; 29(12):6991-6999. PubMed ID: 31187221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Mammography screening: A major issue in medicine.
Autier P; Boniol M
Eur J Cancer; 2018 Feb; 90():34-62. PubMed ID: 29272783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
van Luijt PA; Fracheboud J; Heijnsdijk EA; den Heeten GJ; de Koning HJ;
Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
Bluekens AM; Holland R; Karssemeijer N; Broeders MJ; den Heeten GJ
Radiology; 2012 Dec; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study.
Nederend J; Duijm LE; Voogd AC; Groenewoud JH; Jansen FH; Louwman MW
Breast Cancer Res; 2012 Jan; 14(1):R10. PubMed ID: 22230363
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Comparison of digital mammography and screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening: a review in the Irish breast screening program.
Hambly NM; McNicholas MM; Phelan N; Hargaden GC; O'Doherty A; Flanagan FL
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2009 Oct; 193(4):1010-8. PubMed ID: 19770323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Screen-detected versus interval cancers: Effect of imaging modality and breast density in the Flemish Breast Cancer Screening Programme.
Timmermans L; Bleyen L; Bacher K; Van Herck K; Lemmens K; Van Ongeval C; Van Steen A; Martens P; De Brabander I; Goossens M; Thierens H
Eur Radiol; 2017 Sep; 27(9):3810-3819. PubMed ID: 28289944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Improving breast cancer screening in Australia: a public health perspective.
Nickson C; Velentzis LS; Brennan P; Mann GB; Houssami N
Public Health Res Pract; 2019 Jul; 29(2):. PubMed ID: 31384884
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
US Preventive Services Task Force
Ann Intern Med; 2009 Nov; 151(10):716-26, W-236. PubMed ID: 19920272
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading--evidence to guide future screening strategies.
Houssami N; Macaskill P; Bernardi D; Caumo F; Pellegrini M; Brunelli S; Tuttobene P; Bricolo P; Fantò C; Valentini M; Ciatto S
Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jul; 50(10):1799-1807. PubMed ID: 24746887
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
