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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Journal Abstract Search

273 related items for PubMed ID: 21718717

  • 1. Digital mammography screening: weighing reduced mortality against increased overdiagnosis.
    de Gelder R, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten G, Verbeek AL, Broeders MJ, Draisma G, de Koning HJ.
    Prev Med; 2011 Sep; 53(3):134-40. PubMed ID: 21718717
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Balancing sensitivity and specificity: sixteen year's of experience from the mammography screening programme in Copenhagen, Denmark.
    Utzon-Frank N, Vejborg I, von Euler-Chelpin M, Lynge E.
    Cancer Epidemiol; 2011 Oct; 35(5):393-8. PubMed ID: 21239242
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Screening outcome and surgical treatment during and after the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography in the south of The Netherlands.
    Weber RJ, Nederend J, Voogd AC, Strobbe LJ, Duijm LE.
    Int J Cancer; 2015 Jul 01; 137(1):135-43. PubMed ID: 25418512
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6. Comparison of digital screening mammography and screen-film mammography in the early detection of clinically relevant cancers: a multicenter study.
    Bluekens AM, Holland R, Karssemeijer N, Broeders MJ, den Heeten GJ.
    Radiology; 2012 Dec 01; 265(3):707-14. PubMed ID: 23033499
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: microsimulation modelling estimates based on observed screen and clinical data.
    de Koning HJ, Draisma G, Fracheboud J, de Bruijn A.
    Breast Cancer Res; 2006 Dec 01; 8(1):202. PubMed ID: 16524452
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8. Benefit-to-harm ratio of the Danish breast cancer screening programme.
    Beau AB, Lynge E, Njor SH, Vejborg I, Lophaven SN.
    Int J Cancer; 2017 Aug 01; 141(3):512-518. PubMed ID: 28470685
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9. Potential impact of USPSTF recommendations on early diagnosis of breast cancer.
    Aragon R, Morgan J, Wong JH, Lum S.
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2011 Oct 01; 18(11):3137-42. PubMed ID: 21947591
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. The method of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ has no therapeutic implications: results of a population-based cohort study.
    Elshof LE, Schaapveld M, Rutgers EJ, Schmidt MK, de Munck L, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J.
    Breast Cancer Res; 2017 Mar 09; 19(1):26. PubMed ID: 28274272
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12. Incidence of invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ in a screening program by age: should older women continue screening?
    Erbas B, Amos A, Fletcher A, Kavanagh AM, Gertig DM.
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2004 Oct 09; 13(10):1569-73. PubMed ID: 15466971
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Impact of the transition from screen-film to digital screening mammography on interval cancer characteristics and treatment - a population based study from the Netherlands.
    Nederend J, Duijm LE, Louwman MW, Coebergh JW, Roumen RM, Lohle PN, Roukema JA, Rutten MJ, van Steenbergen LN, Ernst MF, Jansen FH, Plaisier ML, Hooijen MJ, Voogd AC.
    Eur J Cancer; 2014 Jan 09; 50(1):31-9. PubMed ID: 24275518
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14. Digital mammography screening: association between detection rate and nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ.
    Weigel S, Heindel W, Heidinger O, Berkemeyer S, Hense HW.
    Radiology; 2014 Apr 09; 271(1):38-44. PubMed ID: 24475843
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study.
    Warner E, Causer PA, Wong JW, Wright FC, Jong RA, Hill KA, Messner SJ, Yaffe MJ, Narod SA, Plewes DB.
    Breast J; 2011 Apr 09; 17(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 21251121
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16. Nation-wide data on screening performance during the transition to digital mammography: observations in 6 million screens.
    van Luijt PA, Fracheboud J, Heijnsdijk EA, den Heeten GJ, de Koning HJ, National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening in Netherlands Study Group (NETB).
    Eur J Cancer; 2013 Nov 09; 49(16):3517-25. PubMed ID: 23871248
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18. The mammography screening detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer according to women's characteristics: is it the same?
    Théberge I, Vandal N, Guertin MH, Perron L.
    Breast Cancer Res Treat; 2019 Apr 09; 174(2):525-535. PubMed ID: 30564969
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20. Risk of invasive breast carcinoma among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ and lobular carcinoma in situ, 1988-2001.
    Li CI, Malone KE, Saltzman BS, Daling JR.
    Cancer; 2006 May 15; 106(10):2104-12. PubMed ID: 16604564
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 14.