164 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 37897646)
21. Cancer Yield and Patterns of Follow-up for BI-RADS Category 3 after Screening Mammography Recall in the National Mammography Database.
Berg WA; Berg JM; Sickles EA; Burnside ES; Zuley ML; Rosenberg RD; Lee CS
Radiology; 2020 Jul; 296(1):32-41. PubMed ID: 32427557
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Mammography facility characteristics associated with interpretive accuracy of screening mammography.
Taplin S; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Fenton JJ; Berns EA; Carney PA; Cutter GR; Sickles EA; Carl D; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2008 Jun; 100(12):876-87. PubMed ID: 18544742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Does utilization of screening mammography explain racial and ethnic differences in breast cancer?
Smith-Bindman R; Miglioretti DL; Lurie N; Abraham L; Barbash RB; Strzelczyk J; Dignan M; Barlow WE; Beasley CM; Kerlikowske K
Ann Intern Med; 2006 Apr; 144(8):541-53. PubMed ID: 16618951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Diagnostic Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Sprague BL; Arao RF; Miglioretti DL; Henderson LM; Buist DS; Onega T; Rauscher GH; Lee JM; Tosteson AN; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD;
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):59-69. PubMed ID: 28244803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Outcomes by Race in Breast Cancer Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Versus Digital Mammography.
Alsheik N; Blount L; Qiong Q; Talley M; Pohlman S; Troeger K; Abbey G; Mango VL; Pollack E; Chong A; Donadio G; Behling M; Mortimer K; Conant E
J Am Coll Radiol; 2021 Jul; 18(7):906-918. PubMed ID: 33607065
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.
Bahl M; Mercaldo S; Vijapura CA; McCarthy AM; Lehman CD
Eur Radiol; 2019 Feb; 29(2):477-484. PubMed ID: 29967957
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Rate and Timeliness of Diagnostic Evaluation and Biopsy After Recall From Screening Mammography in the National Mammography Database.
Oluyemi ET; Grimm LJ; Goldman L; Burleson J; Simanowith M; Yao K; Rosenberg RD
J Am Coll Radiol; 2024 Mar; 21(3):427-438. PubMed ID: 37722468
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice.
Greenberg JS; Javitt MC; Katzen J; Michael S; Holland AE
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2014 Sep; 203(3):687-93. PubMed ID: 24918774
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Factors Impacting False Positive Recall in Screening Mammography.
Honig EL; Mullen LA; Amir T; Alvin MD; Jones MK; Ambinder EB; Falomo ET; Harvey SC
Acad Radiol; 2019 Nov; 26(11):1505-1512. PubMed ID: 30772138
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Performance of first mammography examination in women younger than 40 years.
Yankaskas BC; Haneuse S; Kapp JM; Kerlikowske K; Geller B; Buist DS;
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2010 May; 102(10):692-701. PubMed ID: 20439838
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Mammography use among women aged 18-39 years in the United States.
Qin J; White MC; Sabatino SA; Febo-Vázquez I
Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2018 Apr; 168(3):687-693. PubMed ID: 29264752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Performance of Screening Ultrasonography as an Adjunct to Screening Mammography in Women Across the Spectrum of Breast Cancer Risk.
Lee JM; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Kerlikowske K; Lehman CD; Smith RA; Henderson LM; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
JAMA Intern Med; 2019 May; 179(5):658-667. PubMed ID: 30882843
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Performance analysis of screening mammography in Asian women under 40 years.
Kwon MR; Chang Y; Park B; Ryu S; Kook SH
Breast Cancer; 2023 Mar; 30(2):241-248. PubMed ID: 36334183
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Screening Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in Community Practice by Patient Age, Screening Round, and Breast Density.
Lowry KP; Coley RY; Miglioretti DL; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Herschorn S; Tosteson ANA; Rauscher G; Lee CI
JAMA Netw Open; 2020 Jul; 3(7):e2011792. PubMed ID: 32721031
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Criteria for identifying radiologists with acceptable screening mammography interpretive performance on basis of multiple performance measures.
Miglioretti DL; Ichikawa L; Smith RA; Bassett LW; Feig SA; Monsees B; Parikh JR; Rosenberg RD; Sickles EA; Carney PA
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Apr; 204(4):W486-91. PubMed ID: 25794100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Prioritizing Screening Mammograms for Immediate Interpretation and Diagnostic Evaluation on the Basis of Risk for Recall.
Ho TH; Bissell MCS; Lee CI; Lee JM; Sprague BL; Tosteson ANA; Wernli KJ; Henderson LM; Kerlikowske K; Miglioretti DL
J Am Coll Radiol; 2023 Mar; 20(3):299-310. PubMed ID: 36273501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years at average risk for breast cancer: an evidence-based analysis.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser; 2007; 7(1):1-32. PubMed ID: 23074501
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Impact of Immediate Interpretation of Screening Tomosynthesis Mammography on Performance Metrics.
Winkler NS; Freer P; Anzai Y; Hu N; Stein M
Acad Radiol; 2019 Feb; 26(2):210-214. PubMed ID: 29748047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.
Jackson SL; Taplin SH; Sickles EA; Abraham L; Barlow WE; Carney PA; Geller B; Berns EA; Cutter GR; Elmore JG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2009 Jun; 101(11):814-27. PubMed ID: 19470953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
