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 *

60 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6981939)

  • 1. Tumor location and detectability in mammographic screening.
    Schmitt EL; Threatt B
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1982 Oct; 139(4):761-5. PubMed ID: 6981939
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effective breast cancer detection with film-screen mammography.
    Schmitt EL; Threatt BA
    J Can Assoc Radiol; 1985 Dec; 36(4):304-7. PubMed ID: 4086500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Characteristics of breast cancer in an incident cancer population.
    Schmitt EL; Threatt B
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1984 Aug; 143(2):403-6. PubMed ID: 6611076
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Mammography for screening high-risk patients for cancer: value of including a lateral projection.
    Kreager JA; Kornguth PJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Feb; 162(2):295-7. PubMed ID: 8310913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and mode of detection: implications for the breast screening programme.
    Sala E; Warren R; McCann J; Duffy S; Day N; Luben R
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(4):207-12. PubMed ID: 9934652
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Efficacy of combined film-screen/xeromammography: preliminary report.
    Pagani JJ; Bassett LW; Gold RH; Benedetti J; Arndt RD; Linsman J; Scanlan RL
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1980 Jul; 135(1):141-6. PubMed ID: 6771979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Breast thickness in routine mammograms: effect on image quality and radiation dose.
    Helvie MA; Chan HP; Adler DD; Boyd PG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Dec; 163(6):1371-4. PubMed ID: 7992731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Mammographic parenchymal patterns as risk indicators for incident cancer in a screening program: an extended analysis.
    Krook PM
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1978 Dec; 131(6):1031-5. PubMed ID: 104567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Influence of mammographic parenchymal pattern in screening-detected and interval invasive breast cancers on pathologic features, mammographic features, and patient survival.
    Porter GJ; Evans AJ; Cornford EJ; Burrell HC; James JJ; Lee AH; Chakrabarti J
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2007 Mar; 188(3):676-83. PubMed ID: 17312053
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Association between mammographic parenchymal pattern classification and incidence of breast cancer.
    Threatt B; Norbeck JM; Ullman NS; Kummer R; Roselle P
    Cancer; 1980 May; 45(10):2550-6. PubMed ID: 7378990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammographic parenchymal patterns. Risk indicator for breast cancer?
    Tabár L; Dean PB
    JAMA; 1982 Jan; 247(2):185-9. PubMed ID: 7053455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Film-screen mammography: comparison of views.
    Bassett LW; Bunnell DH; Gold RH; Jahanshahi R
    J Natl Med Assoc; 1989 Apr; 81(4):391-4. PubMed ID: 2738948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Interval breast cancers in the Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia: analysis and classification.
    Burhenne HJ; Burhenne LW; Goldberg F; Hislop TG; Worth AJ; Rebbeck PM; Kan L
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 May; 162(5):1067-71; discussion 1072-5. PubMed ID: 8165983
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Mammographic parenchymal patterns as indicators of breast cancer risk.
    Saftlas AF; Wolfe JN; Hoover RN; Brinton LA; Schairer C; Salane M; Szklo M
    Am J Epidemiol; 1989 Mar; 129(3):518-26. PubMed ID: 2916545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Screening Sensitivity According to Breast Cancer Location.
    Théberge I; Guertin MH; Vandal N; Côté G; Dufresne MP; Pelletier É; Brisson J
    Can Assoc Radiol J; 2019 May; 70(2):186-192. PubMed ID: 30853307
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40-49 years old versus women 50-64 years old.
    Curpen BN; Sickles EA; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB; Frankel SD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 May; 164(5):1099-103. PubMed ID: 7717212
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk. A case control study of a population-based screening experience.
    Ciatto S; Bravetti P; Cecchini S; Cirillo A
    Radiol Med; 1990 Apr; 79(4):346-8. PubMed ID: 2377751
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box.
    Bassett LW; Hirbawi IA; DeBruhl N; Hayes MK
    Radiology; 1993 Sep; 188(3):803-6. PubMed ID: 8351351
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. An investigation into why two-view mammography is better than one-view in breast cancer screening.
    Hackshaw AK; Wald NJ; Michell MJ; Field S; Wilson AR
    Clin Radiol; 2000 Jun; 55(6):454-8. PubMed ID: 10873691
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. [Mammographic parenchymal pattern and risk of breast cancer (author's transl)].
    Hüppe JR
    Rofo; 1981 Jun; 134(6):638-42. PubMed ID: 6454623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 3.