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

1486 related items for PubMed ID: 23623721

  • 21. Pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for population-based screening in BreastScreen Victoria.
    Houssami N, Lockie D, Clemson M, Pridmore V, Taylor D, Marr G, Evans J, Macaskill P.
    Med J Aust; 2019 Oct; 211(8):357-362. PubMed ID: 31448816
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 22. First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening.
    Weigel S, Batzler WU, Decker T, Hense HW, Heindel W.
    Rofo; 2009 Dec; 181(12):1144-50. PubMed ID: 19859859
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 23.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 24.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 25.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 26. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Niklason LT, Hofvind S, Gur D.
    Radiology; 2013 Apr; 267(1):47-56. PubMed ID: 23297332
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 27. Clinical outcome assessment in mammography: an audit of 7,506 screening and diagnostic mammography examinations.
    Tunçbilek I, Ozdemir A, Gültekin S, Oğur T, Erman R, Yüce C.
    Diagn Interv Radiol; 2007 Dec; 13(4):183-7. PubMed ID: 18092288
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 28.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 29.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 30. Digital mammography screening in Germany: Impact of age and histological subtype on program sensitivity.
    Heidinger O, Heidrich J, Batzler WU, Krieg V, Weigel S, Heindel W, Hense HW.
    Breast; 2015 Jun; 24(3):191-6. PubMed ID: 25687106
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 31. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program.
    McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, Tan KS, Heitjan DF, Schnall M, Conant EF.
    J Natl Cancer Inst; 2014 Nov; 106(11):. PubMed ID: 25313245
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 32. Prospective study aiming to compare 2D mammography and tomosynthesis + synthesized mammography in terms of cancer detection and recall. From double reading of 2D mammography to single reading of tomosynthesis.
    Romero Martín S, Raya Povedano JL, Cara García M, Santos Romero AL, Pedrosa Garriguet M, Álvarez Benito M.
    Eur Radiol; 2018 Jun; 28(6):2484-2491. PubMed ID: 29294150
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 33. Evidence on Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Versus Digital Mammography When Using Tomosynthesis (Three-dimensional Mammography) for Population Breast Cancer Screening.
    Houssami N.
    Clin Breast Cancer; 2018 Aug; 18(4):255-260.e1. PubMed ID: 29066138
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 34. Does breast screening offer a survival benefit? A retrospective comparative study of oncological outcomes of screen-detected and symptomatic early stage breast cancer cases.
    Újhelyi M, Pukancsik D, Kelemen P, Kovács E, Kenessey I, Udvarhelyi N, Bak M, Kovács T, Mátrai Z.
    Eur J Surg Oncol; 2016 Dec; 42(12):1814-1820. PubMed ID: 27424787
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 35. Effect of implementing digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) instead of mammography on population screening outcomes including interval cancer rates: Results of the Trento DBT pilot evaluation.
    Bernardi D, Gentilini MA, De Nisi M, Pellegrini M, Fantò C, Valentini M, Sabatino V, Luparia A, Houssami N.
    Breast; 2020 Apr; 50():135-140. PubMed ID: 31607526
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 36. Artificial intelligence-supported screen reading versus standard double reading in the Mammography Screening with Artificial Intelligence trial (MASAI): a clinical safety analysis of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, screening accuracy study.
    Lång K, Josefsson V, Larsson AM, Larsson S, Högberg C, Sartor H, Hofvind S, Andersson I, Rosso A.
    Lancet Oncol; 2023 Aug; 24(8):936-944. PubMed ID: 37541274
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 37. Screening mammography following autologous breast reconstruction: an unnecessary effort.
    Freyvogel M, Padia S, Larson K, Dietz J, Grobmyer S, O'Rourke C, Valente S.
    Ann Surg Oncol; 2014 Oct; 21(10):3256-60. PubMed ID: 25059787
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 38. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography.
    Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, Hayes MK, Copit DS, Carlson KL, Cink TM, Barke LD, Greer LN, Miller DP, Conant EF.
    JAMA; 2014 Jun 25; 311(24):2499-507. PubMed ID: 25058084
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 39. Discordant and false-negative interpretations at digital breast tomosynthesis in the prospective Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (OTST) using independent double reading.
    Skaane P, Østerås BH, Yanakiev S, Lie T, Eben EB, Gullien R, Brandal SHB.
    Eur Radiol; 2024 Jun 25; 34(6):3912-3923. PubMed ID: 37938385
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 40. Breast Biopsy Intensity and Findings Following Breast Cancer Screening in Women With and Without a Personal History of Breast Cancer.
    Buist DSM, Abraham L, Lee CI, Lee JM, Lehman C, O'Meara ES, Stout NK, Henderson LM, Hill D, Wernli KJ, Haas JS, Tosteson ANA, Kerlikowske K, Onega T, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.
    JAMA Intern Med; 2018 Apr 01; 178(4):458-468. PubMed ID: 29435556
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Previous] [Next] [New Search]
    of 75.