109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8859186)
1. The New Mexico Mammography Project. Screening mammography performance in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1991 to 1993.
Rosenberg RD; Lando JF; Hunt WC; Darling RR; Williamson MR; Linver MN; Gilliland FD; Key CR
Cancer; 1996 Oct; 78(8):1731-9. PubMed ID: 8859186
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Rosenberg RD; Hunt WC; Williamson MR; Gilliland FD; Wiest PW; Kelsey CA; Key CR; Linver MN
Radiology; 1998 Nov; 209(2):511-8. PubMed ID: 9807581
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer.
Kerlikowske K; Carney PA; Geller B; Mandelson MT; Taplin SH; Malvin K; Ernster V; Urban N; Cutter G; Rosenberg R; Ballard-Barbash R
Ann Intern Med; 2000 Dec; 133(11):855-63. PubMed ID: 11103055
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Pathologic findings from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: population-based outcomes in women undergoing biopsy after screening mammography.
Weaver DL; Rosenberg RD; Barlow WE; Ichikawa L; Carney PA; Kerlikowske K; Buist DS; Geller BM; Key CR; Maygarden SJ; Ballard-Barbash R
Cancer; 2006 Feb; 106(4):732-42. PubMed ID: 16411214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. National Performance Benchmarks for Modern Screening Digital Mammography: Update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
Lehman CD; Arao RF; Sprague BL; Lee JM; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Henderson LM; Onega T; Tosteson AN; Rauscher GH; Miglioretti DL
Radiology; 2017 Apr; 283(1):49-58. PubMed ID: 27918707
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography.
Yankaskas BC; Cleveland RJ; Schell MJ; Kozar R
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2001 Sep; 177(3):543-9. PubMed ID: 11517044
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program: report on the first 4 years of mammography provided to medically underserved women.
May DS; Lee NC; Nadel MR; Henson RM; Miller DS
AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1998 Jan; 170(1):97-104. PubMed ID: 9423608
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Early results of breast cancer screening research].
Nowicki A; Stogowska I
Ginekol Pol; 2007 Jun; 78(6):464-70. PubMed ID: 17899703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Patterns of mammography use among Hispanic, American Indian, and non-Hispanic White women in New Mexico, 1994-1997.
Gilliland FD; Rosenberg RD; Hunt WC; Stauber P; Key CR
Am J Epidemiol; 2000 Sep; 152(5):432-7. PubMed ID: 10981456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.
Smith-Bindman R; Chu PW; Miglioretti DL; Sickles EA; Blanks R; Ballard-Barbash R; Bobo JK; Lee NC; Wallis MG; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
JAMA; 2003 Oct; 290(16):2129-37. PubMed ID: 14570948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Can Medicare billing claims data be used to assess mammography utilization among women ages 65 and older?
Smith-Bindman R; Quale C; Chu PW; Rosenberg R; Kerlikowske K
Med Care; 2006 May; 44(5):463-70. PubMed ID: 16641665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK.
Smith-Bindman R; Ballard-Barbash R; Miglioretti DL; Patnick J; Kerlikowske K
J Med Screen; 2005; 12(1):50-4. PubMed ID: 15814020
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Development of a community mammography registry: experience in the breast screening program project.
Clark R; Geller B; Peluso N; McVety D; Worden JK
Radiology; 1995 Sep; 196(3):811-5. PubMed ID: 7644648
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Breast cancer screening: first round in the population-based program in Valencia, Spain. Collaborative Group of Readers of the Breast Cancer Screening Program of the Valencia Community.
Vizcaíno I; Salas D; Vilar JS; Ruiz-Perales F; Herranz C; Ibáñez J
Radiology; 1998 Jan; 206(1):253-60. PubMed ID: 9423680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection.
Lehman CD; Wellman RD; Buist DS; Kerlikowske K; Tosteson AN; Miglioretti DL;
JAMA Intern Med; 2015 Nov; 175(11):1828-37. PubMed ID: 26414882
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Breast and cervical cancer screening and disease incidence and stage in New Mexico.
Escobedo LG; Zhong Z; Key C
Cancer Causes Control; 2002 Mar; 13(2):137-45. PubMed ID: 11936820
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
