Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Results: 1 to 20 of 136

Similar articles for PubMed (Select 20177093)

1.

Cost-effectiveness of breast MR imaging and screen-film mammography for screening BRCA1 gene mutation carriers.

Lee JM, McMahon PM, Kong CY, Kopans DB, Ryan PD, Ozanne EM, Halpern EF, Gazelle GS.

Radiology. 2010 Mar;254(3):793-800. doi: 10.1148/radiol.09091086.

2.

Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging.

Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, Daniel BL, Ikeda DM, Stockdale FE, Garber AM.

JAMA. 2006 May 24;295(20):2374-84.

PMID:
16720823
3.

Cost-effectiveness of alternating magnetic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME, Kong CY, Lowry KP, Halpern EF, McMahon PM, Ryan PD, Gazelle GS.

Cancer. 2013 Mar 15;119(6):1266-76. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27864. Epub 2012 Nov 26.

4.

Breast cancer screening in BRCA1 mutation carriers: effectiveness of MR imaging--Markov Monte Carlo decision analysis.

Lee JM, Kopans DB, McMahon PM, Halpern EF, Ryan PD, Weinstein MC, Gazelle GS.

Radiology. 2008 Mar;246(3):763-71. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2463070224.

PMID:
18309013
5.

Cost-effectiveness of MRI for breast cancer screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers.

Pataky R, Armstrong L, Chia S, Coldman AJ, Kim-Sing C, McGillivray B, Scott J, Wilson CM, Peacock S.

BMC Cancer. 2013 Jul 10;13:339. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-339.

6.

Cost-effectiveness of MRI compared to mammography for breast cancer screening in a high risk population.

Moore SG, Shenoy PJ, Fanucchi L, Tumeh JW, Flowers CR.

BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Jan 13;9:9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-9.

7.

Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening.

Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, Acharyya S, Herman BA, Hannah LG, Pisano ED; DMIST Investigators.

Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jan 1;148(1):1-10.

8.

Cost-effectiveness of screening with contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging vs X-ray mammography of women at a high familial risk of breast cancer.

Griebsch I, Brown J, Boggis C, Dixon A, Dixon M, Easton D, Eeles R, Evans DG, Gilbert FJ, Hawnaur J, Kessar P, Lakhani SR, Moss SM, Nerurkar A, Padhani AR, Pointon LJ, Potterton J, Thompson D, Turnbull LW, Walker LG, Warren R, Leach MO; UK Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Screening (MARIBS) Study Group.

Br J Cancer. 2006 Oct 9;95(7):801-10.

9.

Cost-effectiveness of screening women with familial risk for breast cancer with magnetic resonance imaging.

Saadatmand S, Tilanus-Linthorst MM, Rutgers EJ, Hoogerbrugge N, Oosterwijk JC, Tollenaar RA, Hooning M, Loo CE, Obdeijn IM, Heijnsdijk EA, de Koning HJ.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013 Sep 4;105(17):1314-21. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt203. Epub 2013 Aug 12.

10.

Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness.

Schousboe JT, Kerlikowske K, Loh A, Cummings SR.

Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):10-20. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-1-201107050-00003.

11.

Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model.

Pharoah PD, Sewell B, Fitzsimmons D, Bennett HS, Pashayan N.

BMJ. 2013 May 9;346:f2618. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f2618. Erratum in: BMJ. 2013;346:f3822.

12.

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

Sprague BL, Stout NK, Schechter C, van Ravesteyn NT, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Lee CI, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Mandelblatt JS, de Koning HJ, Kerlikowske K, Lehman CD, Tosteson AN.

Ann Intern Med. 2015 Feb 3;162(3):157-66. doi: 10.7326/M14-0692.

PMID:
25486550
13.

Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis.

Lowry KP, Lee JM, Kong CY, McMahon PM, Gilmore ME, Cott Chubiz JE, Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Ryan PD, Ozanne EM, Gazelle GS.

Cancer. 2012 Apr 15;118(8):2021-30. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26424. Epub 2011 Sep 20. Erratum in: Cancer. 2012 Nov 1;118(21):5448.

15.

Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening with contrast-enhanced MRI in high-risk women.

Taneja C, Edelsberg J, Weycker D, Guo A, Oster G, Weinreb J.

J Am Coll Radiol. 2009 Mar;6(3):171-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.10.003.

PMID:
19248993
16.

Which screening strategy should be offered to women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations? A simulation of comparative cost-effectiveness.

de Bock GH, Vermeulen KM, Jansen L, Oosterwijk JC, Siesling S, Dorrius MD, Feenstra T, Houssami N, Greuter MJ.

Br J Cancer. 2013 Apr 30;108(8):1579-86. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.149. Epub 2013 Apr 11.

17.

Comparative effectiveness of screening and prevention strategies among BRCA1/2-affected mutation carriers.

Grann VR, Patel PR, Jacobson JS, Warner E, Heitjan DF, Ashby-Thompson M, Hershman DL, Neugut AI.

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Feb;125(3):837-47. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1043-4. Epub 2010 Jul 20.

18.

Retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis of screening mammography.

Stout NK, Rosenberg MA, Trentham-Dietz A, Smith MA, Robinson SM, Fryback DG.

J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Jun 7;98(11):774-82.

19.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of mammography and clinical breast examination strategies: a comparison with current guidelines.

Ahern CH, Shen Y.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Mar;18(3):718-25. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0918. Epub 2009 Mar 3.

20.

Cost-effectiveness of annual versus biennial screening mammography for women with high mammographic breast density.

Pataky R, Ismail Z, Coldman AJ, Elwood M, Gelmon K, Hedden L, Hislop G, Kan L, McCoy B, Olivotto IA, Peacock S.

J Med Screen. 2014 Dec;21(4):180-8. doi: 10.1177/0969141314549758. Epub 2014 Sep 3.

PMID:
25186116
Format
Items per page
Sort by

Send to:

Choose Destination

Supplemental Content

Write to the Help Desk