BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

501 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8517320)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Eaton A; Ernster V
    JAMA; 1993 Nov; 270(20):2444-50. PubMed ID: 8230621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Risk factors for breast cancer in women undergoing mammography.
    Reuter KL; Baker SP; Krolikowski FJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Feb; 158(2):273-8. PubMed ID: 1729780
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures.
    Brown ML; Houn F; Sickles EA; Kessler LG
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Dec; 165(6):1373-7. PubMed ID: 7484568
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Mammography in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients.
    Stomper PC; Gelman RS
    Hematol Oncol Clin North Am; 1989 Dec; 3(4):611-40. PubMed ID: 2691492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance.
    Frankel SD; Sickles EA; Curpen BN; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 May; 164(5):1107-9. PubMed ID: 7717214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Bilateral breast cancer: early detection with mammography.
    Roubidoux MA; Helvie MA; Lai NE; Paramagul C
    Radiology; 1995 Aug; 196(2):427-31. PubMed ID: 7617856
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Breast cancers in women 35 years of age and younger: mammographic findings.
    Shaw de Paredes E; Marsteller LP; Eden BV
    Radiology; 1990 Oct; 177(1):117-9. PubMed ID: 2399309
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Systematic mammographic screening for breast cancer in asymptomatic women].
    Bourdon C; Mazy G; Vandenbroucke A
    J Belge Radiol; 1992 Feb; 75(1):17-23. PubMed ID: 1568999
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Mammography screening methods and diagnostic results.
    Thurfjell E
    Acta Radiol Suppl; 1995; 395():1-22. PubMed ID: 7839866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program experience: use of needle core biopsy in the diagnosis of screening-detected abnormalities.
    Caines JS; Chantziantoniou K; Wright BA; Konok GP; Iles SE; Bodurtha A; Zayid I; Daniels C
    Radiology; 1996 Jan; 198(1):125-30. PubMed ID: 8539363
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Ernster V
    JAMA; 1996 Jul; 276(1):33-8. PubMed ID: 8667536
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Sclerosing lobular hyperplasia of the breast: imaging features in 15 cases.
    Poulton TB; de Paredes ES; Baldwin M
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1995 Aug; 165(2):291-4. PubMed ID: 7618542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The importance of mammographic screening relative to the treatment of women with carcinoma of the breast.
    Solin LJ; Legorreta A; Schultz DJ; Zatz S; Goodman RL
    Arch Intern Med; 1994 Apr; 154(7):745-52. PubMed ID: 8147678
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program.
    Thurfjell EL; Lernevall KA; Taube AA
    Radiology; 1994 Apr; 191(1):241-4. PubMed ID: 8134580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Solitary breast papilloma: comparison of mammographic, galactographic, and pathologic findings.
    Woods ER; Helvie MA; Ikeda DM; Mandell SH; Chapel KL; Adler DD
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Sep; 159(3):487-91. PubMed ID: 1503011
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Clinical efficacy of mammographic screening in the elderly.
    Faulk RM; Sickles EA; Sollitto RA; Ominsky SH; Galvin HB; Frankel SD
    Radiology; 1995 Jan; 194(1):193-7. PubMed ID: 7997552
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years.
    Miller AB; Baines CJ; To T; Wall C
    CMAJ; 1992 Nov; 147(10):1477-88. PubMed ID: 1423088
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 26.