137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37665745)
21. 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]
22. Online self-test identifies women at high familial breast cancer risk in population-based breast cancer screening without inducing anxiety or distress.
van Erkelens A; Sie AS; Manders P; Visser A; Duijm LE; Mann RM; Ten Voorde M; Kroeze H; Prins JB; Hoogerbrugge N
Eur J Cancer; 2017 Jun; 78():45-52. PubMed ID: 28412588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Mammography screening in the county of Fyn. November 1993-December 1999.
Njor SH; Olsen AH; Bellstrøm T; Dyreborg U; Bak M; Axelsson C; Graversen HP; Schwartz W; Lynge E
APMIS Suppl; 2003; (110):1-33. PubMed ID: 12739252
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. 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]
25. Knowledge, attitude and practice about breast cancer and breast self-examination among women seeking out-patient care in a teaching hospital in central India.
Siddharth R; Gupta D; Narang R; Singh P
Indian J Cancer; 2016; 53(2):226-229. PubMed ID: 28071615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years with a high or low risk of breast cancer: socioeconomic status, parity, and age at birth of first child.
Hellquist BN; Czene K; Hjälm A; Nyström L; Jonsson H
Cancer; 2015 Jan; 121(2):251-8. PubMed ID: 25242087
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: a new paradigm for cancer prevention.
Evans DG; Warwick J; Astley SM; Stavrinos P; Sahin S; Ingham S; McBurney H; Eckersley B; Harvie M; Wilson M; Beetles U; Warren R; Hufton A; Sergeant JC; Newman WG; Buchan I; Cuzick J; Howell A
Cancer Prev Res (Phila); 2012 Jul; 5(7):943-51. PubMed ID: 22581816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Impact of breast cancer screening in a population with high spontaneous coverage with mammography.
Capodaglio G; Zorzi M; Tognazzo S; Greco A; Michieletto F; Fedato C; Montaguti A; Turrin A; Ferro A; Cinquetti S; Russo F; Corti MC; Rugge M; Fedeli U
Tumori; 2018 Aug; 104(4):258-265. PubMed ID: 30079815
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. 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]
30. 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]
31. Rapid review: Estimates of incremental breast cancer detection from tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) screening in women with dense breasts.
Houssami N; Turner RM
Breast; 2016 Dec; 30():141-145. PubMed ID: 27721194
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?
McWilliams L; Woof VG; Donnelly LS; Howell A; Evans DG; French DP
BMC Cancer; 2021 May; 21(1):637. PubMed ID: 34051753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. Can the breast screening appointment be used to provide risk assessment and prevention advice?
Evans DG; Howell A
Breast Cancer Res; 2015 Jul; 17(1):84. PubMed ID: 26155950
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Feasibility Study and Clinical Impact of Incorporating Breast Tissue Density in High-Risk Breast Cancer Screening Assessment.
Rusnak A; Morrison S; Smith E; Hastings V; Anderson K; Aldridge C; Zelenietz S; Reddick K; Regnier S; Alie E; Islam N; Fasih R; Peddle S; Cordeiro E; Tomiak E; Seely JM
Curr Oncol; 2022 Nov; 29(11):8742-8750. PubMed ID: 36421341
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Breast cancer and breast cancer screening use-beliefs and behaviours in a nationwide study in Malaysia.
Tan MM; Jamil ASA; Ismail R; Donnelly M; Su TT
BMC Public Health; 2023 Jul; 23(1):1319. PubMed ID: 37430228
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Trends in stage-specific breast cancer incidence in New South Wales, Australia: insights into the effects of 25 years of screening mammography.
Jacklyn G; McGeechan K; Irwig L; Houssami N; Morrell S; Bell K; Barratt A
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2017 Dec; 166(3):843-854. PubMed ID: 28822001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
