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 *

154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8888152)

  • 1. Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.
    Kerlikowske K
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 1996; 40(1):53-64. PubMed ID: 8888152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Racial differences in timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.
    Chang SW; Kerlikowske K; Nápoles-Springer A; Posner SF; Sickles EA; Pérez-Stable EJ
    Cancer; 1996 Oct; 78(7):1395-402. PubMed ID: 8839544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. Selective nonoperative management of patients referred with abnormal mammograms.
    Erickson EJ; McGreevy JM; Muskett A
    Am J Surg; 1990 Dec; 160(6):659-62: discussion 662-4. PubMed ID: 2252132
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity.
    McCarthy AM; Kim JJ; Beaber EF; Zheng Y; Burnett-Hartman A; Chubak J; Ghai NR; McLerran D; Breen N; Conant EF; Geller BM; Green BB; Klabunde CN; Inrig S; Skinner CS; Quinn VP; Haas JS; Schnall M; Rutter CM; Barlow WE; Corley DA; Armstrong K; Doubeni CA;
    Am J Prev Med; 2016 Oct; 51(4):507-12. PubMed ID: 27132628
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms.
    McCarthy BD; Yood MU; Boohaker EA; Ward RE; Rebner M; Johnson CC
    Am J Prev Med; 1996; 12(4):282-8. PubMed ID: 8874693
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Likelihood ratios for modern screening mammography. Risk of breast cancer based on age and mammographic interpretation.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Barclay J; Sickles EA; Ernster V
    JAMA; 1996 Jul; 276(1):39-43. PubMed ID: 8667537
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 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]  

  • 10. Trends in area-socioeconomic and race-ethnic disparities in breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, screening, mortality, and survival among women ages 50 years and over (1987-2005).
    Harper S; Lynch J; Meersman SC; Breen N; Davis WW; Reichman MC
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2009 Jan; 18(1):121-31. PubMed ID: 19124489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Mammographic screening of women aged 40 to 49 years. Is it justified?
    Feig SA
    Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am; 1994 Dec; 21(4):587-606. PubMed ID: 7731636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis.
    Kerlikowske K; Grady D; Rubin SM; Sandrock C; Ernster VL
    JAMA; 1995 Jan; 273(2):149-54. PubMed ID: 7799496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. Mobile Mammography Participation Among Medically Underserved Women: A Systematic Review.
    Vang S; Margolies LR; Jandorf L
    Prev Chronic Dis; 2018 Nov; 15():E140. PubMed ID: 30447104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. The importance of physician communication on breast cancer screening of older women.
    Fox SA; Siu AL; Stein JA
    Arch Intern Med; 1994 Sep; 154(18):2058-68. PubMed ID: 8092910
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. Mammographic screening: patterns of use and estimated impact on breast carcinoma survival.
    Blanchard K; Colbert JA; Puri D; Weissman J; Moy B; Kopans DB; Kaine EM; Moore RH; Halpern EF; Hughes KS; Tanabe KK; Smith BL; Michaelson JS
    Cancer; 2004 Aug; 101(3):495-507. PubMed ID: 15274062
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Breast cancer screening by mammography in women aged under 50 years in Japan.
    Morimoto T; Sasa M; Yamaguchi T; Kondo H; Akaiwa H; Sagara Y
    Anticancer Res; 2000; 20(5C):3689-94. PubMed ID: 11268440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.