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 *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 848662)

  • 21. [Mammographic surveillance of breast cancer patient relatives; implementation of guidelines formulated by the Netherlands College of General Practitioners].
    Duijm LE; Zaat JO; Guit GL
    Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd; 1998 Apr; 142(14):778-81. PubMed ID: 9646610
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Mammographic surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer relatives in general practice: rate of re-attendance and GP- and patient-related barriers.
    Duijm LE; Guit GL; Zaat JO
    Fam Pract; 1997 Dec; 14(6):450-4. PubMed ID: 9476075
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Benefits versus risks from mammography: a critical reassessment.
    Mettler FA; Upton AC; Kelsey CA; Ashby RN; Rosenberg RD; Linver MN
    Cancer; 1996 Mar; 77(5):903-9. PubMed ID: 8608482
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. [Mammography].
    Grégoire A; Bernard C; Lavallée G; Morin C; Philie M
    Union Med Can; 1992; 121(4):239-42. PubMed ID: 1413293
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Screening mammography after breast cancer treatment: patterns in community practice.
    Krishnaraj A; Yankaskas BC; Stearns SC
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2006 May; 97(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 16331348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. The added value of mammography in different age-groups of women with and without BRCA mutation screened with breast MRI.
    Vreemann S; van Zelst JCM; Schlooz-Vries M; Bult P; Hoogerbrugge N; Karssemeijer N; Gubern-Mérida A; Mann RM
    Breast Cancer Res; 2018 Aug; 20(1):84. PubMed ID: 30075794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. [Risk-benefit analysis for mass screening of breast cancer utilizing mammography as a screening test].
    Iinuma TA; Tateno Y
    Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi; 1989 Sep; 49(9):1091-5. PubMed ID: 2587191
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Development of a protocol for evaluation of mammographic surveillance services in women under 50 with a family history of breast cancer.
    Mackay J; Rogers C; Fielder H; Blamey R; Macmillan D; Boggis C; Brown J; Pharoah PD; Moss S; Day NE; Myles J; Austoker J; Gray J; Cuzick J; Duffy SW
    J Epidemiol Biostat; 2001; 6(5):365-9; discussion 371-5. PubMed ID: 11822726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Breast cancer yield for screening mammographic examinations with recommendation for short-interval follow-up.
    Kerlikowske K; Smith-Bindman R; Abraham LA; Lehman CD; Yankaskas BC; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Voeks JH; Geller BM; Carney PA; Sickles EA
    Radiology; 2005 Mar; 234(3):684-92. PubMed ID: 15734926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The effectiveness of breast cancer screening by mammography in younger women.
    Elwood JM; Cox B; Richardson AK
    Online J Curr Clin Trials; 1993 Feb; Doc No 32():[23,227 words; 195 paragraphs]. PubMed ID: 8305999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Screening Mammography in Women 40-49 Years Old: Current Evidence.
    Ray KM; Joe BN; Freimanis RI; Sickles EA; Hendrick RE
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2018 Feb; 210(2):264-270. PubMed ID: 29064760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Radiologic detection of breast cancer. Review and recommendations.
    Sadowsky NL; Kalisher L; White G; Ferrucci JT
    N Engl J Med; 1976 Feb; 294(7):370-3. PubMed ID: 1246289
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Ability of mammography to reveal nonpalpable breast cancer in women with palpable breast masses.
    Rosen EL; Sickles E; Keating D
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1999 Feb; 172(2):309-12. PubMed ID: 9930773
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Screening mammography: value in women 35-39 years old.
    Liberman L; Dershaw DD; Deutch BM; Thaler HT; Lippin BS
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1993 Jul; 161(1):53-6. PubMed ID: 8517320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40-49 years.
    Buist DS; Porter PL; Lehman C; Taplin SH; White E
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2004 Oct; 96(19):1432-40. PubMed ID: 15467032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Are breast density and bone mineral density independent risk factors for breast cancer?
    Kerlikowske K; Shepherd J; Creasman J; Tice JA; Ziv E; Cummings SR
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2005 Mar; 97(5):368-74. PubMed ID: 15741573
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses.
    Heyes GJ; Mill AJ; Charles MW
    J Radiol Prot; 2009 Jun; 29(2A):A123-32. PubMed ID: 19454801
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. [Tailored Breast Screening Trial (TBST)].
    Paci E; Mantellini P; Giorgi Rossi P; Falini P; Puliti D;
    Epidemiol Prev; 2013; 37(4-5):317-27. PubMed ID: 24293498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Mammographic screening: is the benefit worth the risk?
    Faulkner K
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2005; 117(1-3):318-20. PubMed ID: 16464841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Detection of ductal carcinoma in situ in women undergoing screening mammography.
    Ernster VL; Ballard-Barbash R; Barlow WE; Zheng Y; Weaver DL; Cutter G; Yankaskas BC; Rosenberg R; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Taplin SH; Urban N; Geller BM
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2002 Oct; 94(20):1546-54. PubMed ID: 12381707
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.