Literature DB >> 28243876

Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening: A Density Conundrum.

Jeffrey A Tice1, Karla Kerlikowske2.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh：

Year:  2017        PMID： 28243876      PMCID： PMC5442011          DOI： 10.1007/s11606-017-3989-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN： 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


× No keyword cloud information.
  9 in total

1.  Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Rebecca A Hubbard; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Constance D Lehman; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Philip C Prorok; A James O'Malley; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Miranda Pappas; Amy Cantor; Jessica Griffin; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Breast Density Notification Legislation and Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis: Early Evidence from the SEER Registry.

Authors:  Ilana Richman; Steven M Asch; Eran Bendavid; Jay Bhattacharya; Douglas K Owens
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  The Connecticut Experiment; The Third Installment: 4 Years of Screening Women with Dense Breasts with Bilateral Ultrasound.

Authors:  Jean M Weigert
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  MR Imaging as an Additional Screening Modality for the Detection of Breast Cancer in Women Aged 50-75 Years with Extremely Dense Breasts: The DENSE Trial Study Design.

Authors:  Marleen J Emaus; Marije F Bakker; Petra H M Peeters; Claudette E Loo; Ritse M Mann; Mathijn D F de Jong; Robertus H C Bisschops; Jeroen Veltman; Katya M Duvivier; Marc B I Lobbes; Ruud M Pijnappel; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Willem P Th M Mali; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Natasha K Stout; Jeffrey G Jarvik; Scott D Ramsey; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-10-28       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of supplemental ultrasonography screening for women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Natasha K Stout; Clyde Schechter; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Mucahit Cevik; Oguzhan Alagoz; Christoph I Lee; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Harry J de Koning; Karla Kerlikowske; Constance D Lehman; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-02-03       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States.

Authors:  Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 13.506
  9 in total
  1 in total

1.  Between-Race Differences in Supplemental Breast Cancer Screening Before and After Breast Density Notification Law.

Authors:  Mark Manning; Terrance L Albrecht; Suzanne O'Neill; Kristen Purrington
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 5.532
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.