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 *

140 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8677322)

  • 61. Screening mammography for women under 50: considerations for fully informed decision making.
    Ernster VL
    Womens Health; 1996; 2(4):257-60; discussion 261-6. PubMed ID: 9453858
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 62. Radiation risk of mammography related to benefit in screening programmes: a favourable balance?
    Beemsterboer PM; Warmerdam PG; Boer R; de Koning HJ
    J Med Screen; 1998; 5(2):81-7. PubMed ID: 9718526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 63. Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish breast cancer-screening trials.
    de Koning HJ; Boer R; Warmerdam PG; Beemsterboer PM; van der Maas PJ
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 1995 Aug; 87(16):1217-23. PubMed ID: 7563167
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 64. Evaluation of the population dose to the UK population from the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.
    Faulkner K; Wallis MG; Neilson F; Whitaker CJ
    Radiat Prot Dosimetry; 2008; 129(1-3):184-90. PubMed ID: 18483008
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 65. [Mass screening of breast cancer: response and justification].
    Bartsch P; Gordenne W
    Rev Med Liege; 1998 Apr; 53(4):214-5. PubMed ID: 9641017
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 66. Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography screening in Hong Kong Chinese using state-transition Markov modelling.
    Wong IO; Kuntz KM; Cowling BJ; Lam CL; Leung GM
    Hong Kong Med J; 2010 Jun; 16 Suppl 3():38-41. PubMed ID: 20601733
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 67. [Mammographic screening does not reduce breast cancer mortality].
    Sjönell G; Ståhle L
    Lakartidningen; 1999 Feb; 96(8):904-5, 908-13. PubMed ID: 10089737
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 68. Mammography utilization, public health impact, and cost-effectiveness in the United States.
    White E; Urban N; Taylor V
    Annu Rev Public Health; 1993; 14():605-33. PubMed ID: 8323604
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 69. Screening mammography.
    McLelland R
    Cancer; 1991 Feb; 67(4 Suppl):1129-31. PubMed ID: 1899354
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 70. Mammographic screening: measurement of the cost in a population based programme in Victoria, Australia.
    Hurley SF; Livingston PM; Thane N; Quang L
    J Epidemiol Community Health; 1994 Aug; 48(4):391-9. PubMed ID: 7964340
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 71. Effect of screening programme on mortality from breast cancer. Investment in treatment would be more cost effective.
    Baum M; Tobias JS
    BMJ; 2000 Dec; 321(7275):1528. PubMed ID: 11118189
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 72. Screening younger women at risk for breast cancer.
    Vogel VG
    J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr; 1994; (16):55-60. PubMed ID: 7999470
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 73. [Cost-benefit analysis of a mammography screening program extended to all the national territory].
    Vanara F; Zappa M; Rosselli del Turco M; Segnan N; Paci E; Ponti A
    Epidemiol Prev; 1997; 21(2):118-28. PubMed ID: 9378179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 74. [Assessment of usefulness and risk of mammography screening with exclusive attention to radiation risk].
    Jung H
    Radiologe; 2001 Apr; 41(4):385-95. PubMed ID: 11388061
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 75. [Health economics analysis of breast cancer screening].
    Boncz I; Sebestyén A; Gulácsi L; Pál M; Dózsa C
    Magy Onkol; 2003; 47(2):149-54. PubMed ID: 12975661
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 76. Performance of a subsidised mammographic screening programme in Malaysia, a middle-income Asian country.
    Lee M; Mariapun S; Rajaram N; Teo SH; Yip CH
    BMC Public Health; 2017 Jan; 17(1):127. PubMed ID: 28129762
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 77. The cost-effectiveness of screening mammography beyond age 65 years: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
    Mandelblatt J; Saha S; Teutsch S; Hoerger T; Siu AL; Atkins D; Klein J; Helfand M;
    Ann Intern Med; 2003 Nov; 139(10):835-42. PubMed ID: 14623621
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 78. The British Columbia Mammography Screening Program: evaluation of the first 15 months.
    Burhenne LJ; Hislop TG; Burhenne HJ
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1992 Jan; 158(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 1307850
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 79. 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]  

  • 80. [Contributions of the epidemiological cancer registries to the evaluation of mammography screening in Germany].
    Urbschat I; Kieschke J; Schlanstedt-Jahn U; von Gehlen S; Thiel A; Jensch P
    Gesundheitswesen; 2005 Jul; 67(7):448-54. PubMed ID: 16103967
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.