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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37152662)

  • 21. 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]  

  • 22. Screening Strategy Modification Based on Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Stratification and its Implementation in the National Guidelines - Pilot Study.
    Krajc M; Gareth Evans D; Blatnik A; Lokar K; Žagar T; Tomšič S; Žgajnar J; Zadnik V
    Zdr Varst; 2020 Dec; 59(4):211-218. PubMed ID: 33133277
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. 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]  

  • 24. Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).
    Gareth Evans D; McWilliams L; Astley S; Brentnall AR; Cuzick J; Dobrashian R; Duffy SW; Gorman LS; Harkness EF; Harrison F; Harvie M; Jerrison A; Machin M; Maxwell AJ; Howell SJ; Wright SJ; Payne K; Qureshi N; Ruane H; Southworth J; Fox L; Bowers S; Hutchinson G; Thorpe E; Ulph F; Woof V; Howell A; French DP
    Br J Cancer; 2023 Jun; 128(11):2063-2071. PubMed ID: 37005486
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. 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]  

  • 26. Breast cancer risk stratification in women of screening age: Incremental effects of adding mammographic density, polygenic risk, and a gene panel.
    Evans DGR; van Veen EM; Harkness EF; Brentnall AR; Astley SM; Byers H; Woodward ER; Sampson S; Southworth J; Howell SJ; Maxwell AJ; Newman WG; Cuzick J; Howell A
    Genet Med; 2022 Jul; 24(7):1485-1494. PubMed ID: 35426792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
    Crider K; Williams J; Qi YP; Gutman J; Yeung L; Mai C; Finkelstain J; Mehta S; Pons-Duran C; Menéndez C; Moraleda C; Rogers L; Daniels K; Green P
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 2022 Feb; 2(2022):. PubMed ID: 36321557
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Breast cancer risk assessment and risk distribution in 3,491 Slovenian women invited for screening at the age of 50; a population-based cross-sectional study.
    Jarm K; Zadnik V; Birk M; Vrhovec M; Hertl K; Klanecek Z; Studen A; Sval C; Krajc M
    Radiol Oncol; 2023 Sep; 57(3):337-347. PubMed ID: 37665745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. 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]  

  • 30. An integrated breast cancer risk assessment and management model based on fuzzy cognitive maps.
    Subramanian J; Karmegam A; Papageorgiou E; Papandrianos N; Vasukie A
    Comput Methods Programs Biomed; 2015 Mar; 118(3):280-97. PubMed ID: 25697987
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. 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]  

  • 32. 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]  

  • 33. 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]  

  • 34. 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]  

  • 35. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of four different strategies for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in the general population (CoV-Surv Study): a structured summary of a study protocol for a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled trial.
    Deckert A; Anders S; de Allegri M; Nguyen HT; Souares A; McMahon S; Boerner K; Meurer M; Herbst K; Sand M; Koeppel L; Siems T; Brugnara L; Brenner S; Burk R; Lou D; Kirrmaier D; Duan Y; Ovchinnikova S; Marx M; Kräusslich HG; Knop M; Bärnighausen T; Denkinger C
    Trials; 2021 Jan; 22(1):39. PubMed ID: 33419461
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. A case-control study to assess the impact of mammographic density on breast cancer risk in women aged 40-49 at intermediate familial risk.
    Assi V; Massat NJ; Thomas S; MacKay J; Warwick J; Kataoka M; Warsi I; Brentnall A; Warren R; Duffy SW
    Int J Cancer; 2015 May; 136(10):2378-87. PubMed ID: 25333209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Deep Learning vs Traditional Breast Cancer Risk Models to Support Risk-Based Mammography Screening.
    Lehman CD; Mercaldo S; Lamb LR; King TA; Ellisen LW; Specht M; Tamimi RM
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2022 Oct; 114(10):1355-1363. PubMed ID: 35876790
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Identifying and Managing Patients with Elevated Breast Cancer Risk Presenting for Screening Mammography.
    Patel NJ; Mussallem DM; Maimone S
    Curr Probl Diagn Radiol; 2022; 51(6):838-841. PubMed ID: 35595586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. 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]  

  • 40. An alternative approach to selecting patients for high-risk screening with breast MRI.
    Hollingsworth AB; Stough RG
    Breast J; 2014; 20(2):192-7. PubMed ID: 24387050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.