Unnamed: 0 int64 0 21.3k | Chapter stringclasses 230
values | Section stringlengths 5 670 ⌀ | Subsection stringlengths 1 120 ⌀ | Subsubsection stringclasses 689
values | Text stringlengths 1 4.39k ⌀ | row_counts int64 6 6 | Screening float64 0 0.98 | Diagnosis float64 0 0.99 | Staging float64 0 0.99 | Treatment float64 0 0.99 | Prognosis float64 0 0.99 | Follow-up float64 0 0.99 | max_value float64 0 0.99 | classs int64 1 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
700 | Breast Cancer Screening | POTENTIAL HARMS OF SCREENING | Overdiagnosis | nan nan | Autopsy studies that note breast tumors in women who died of causes unrelated to breast cancer provide some infor- mation on the possible rate of underlying breast cancer in the asymptomatic population. An overview of seven autopsy studies found a median prevalence of 1.3% for undiagnosed invasive breast cancer (range ... | 6 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 3 |
701 | Breast Cancer Screening | POTENTIAL HARMS OF SCREENING | Overdiagnosis | nan nan | Another method of looking for overdiagnosis would be to conduct an observational, population-based comparison of breast cancer incidence rates before and after the adop- tion of screening. In the absence of overdiagnosis, we would expect to see a rise in the incidence of breast cancer after screening is adopted, follow... | 6 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 2 |
702 | Breast Cancer Screening | SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS | Women Younger Than 40 | nan nan | detect a single case of breast cancer. Younger women are also more likely to have dense breast tissue, which is associ- ated with less accurate screening performance, thus increas- ing the likelihood of false positives and false negatives. | 6 | 0.15 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.15 | 0.3 | 3 |
703 | Breast Cancer Screening | SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS | Women with Increased Breast Density | nan nan | Women with extremely dense breast tissue have a three to five times greater lifetime risk of developing breast cancer compared to women with almost entirely fatty breasts, even after adjusting for associated risk factors such as age (21–23). Increased breast density is now regarded as an independent risk factor for bre... | 6 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
704 | Breast Cancer Screening | SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS | Genetic Mutations That Increase Breast Cancer Risk | nan nan | Several studies have described the outcome of using MRI to screen women at high risk of breast cancer (31,33,35,135– 140). These studies are variable in terms of the underlying population studied, the equipment and protocols used, and the calculation and reporting of results. Also, the number of screening rounds is lim... | 6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1 |
705 | Breast Cancer Screening | SCREENING CONSIDERATIONS | Genetic Mutations That Increase Breast Cancer Risk | nan nan | Despite these caveats, studies consistently demonstrate that breast MRI is more sensitive than either mammogra- phy or ultrasound in detecting hereditary breast cancer, although concerns have been raised about the reduced specificity of MRI compared with other screening modalities (31,33,35,138,141,142). Nevertheless, ... | 6 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 1 |
706 | Breast Cancer Screening | THE U.S. MAMMOGRAPHY QUALITY STANDARDS ACT | null | nan nan | The Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), passed by the U.S. Congress in 1992, requires mammography facili- ties to meet uniform quality standards (147). The Act sets standards for personnel involved in performing and inter- preting mammograms, effective quality control programs for each facility, and medical audit... | 6 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 5 |
707 | Breast Cancer Screening | GUIDELINES AND INFORMED MEDICAL DECISION-MAKING | null | nan nan | Numerous guidelines on breast cancer screening have been developed, with frequent changes as more evidence appears. The National Guideline Clearinghouse (http://www. guideline.gov) provides free, online access to summaries of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice (150). This Web-based resource, supported by t... | 6 | 0.023 | 0.067 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 3 |
708 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Jekel JF, Elmore JG, Katz DL, et al. Epidemiology, biostatistics and preven- tive medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Harcourt Health Sciences, 2007. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
709 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338(16):1089–1096. | 6 | 0.025 | 0.04 | 0.075 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 4 |
710 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Iared W, Shigueoka DC, Torloni MR, et al. Comparative evaluation of digi- tal mammography and film mammography: systematic review and meta- analysis. Sao Paulo med J 2011;129(4):250–260. | 6 | 0.087 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.083 | 0.087 | 1 |
711 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Pisano ED, Yaffe MJ. Digital mammography. Radiology 2005;234(2): 353–362. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.1 | 0.075 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 2 |
712 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Pisano ED, Gatsonis CA, Yaffe MJ, et al. American College of Radiology Imaging Network digital mammographic imaging screening trial: objec- tives and methodology. Radiology 2005;236(2):404–412. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.075 | 0.088 | 0.095 | 0.092 | 0.09 | 0.098 | 1 |
713 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Houssami N, Ciatto S. The evolving role of new imaging methods in breast screening. Prev Med 2011;53(3):123–126. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.074 | 0.088 | 0.088 | 0.088 | 0.088 | 0.098 | 1 |
714 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Brem RF, Baum J, Lechner M, et al. Improvement in sensitivity of screen- ing mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181(3):687–693. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 2 |
715 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | The JS, Schilling KJ, Hoffmeister JW, et al. Detection of breast cancer with full-field digital mammography and computer-aided detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192(2):337–340. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 4 |
716 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Brem RF, Hoffmeister JW, Rapelyea JA, et al. Impact of breast density on computer-aided detection for breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005; 184(2):439–444. | 6 | 0.067 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 0.073 | 2 |
717 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220(3):781–786. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.09 | 0.085 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.095 | 1 |
718 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Loving VA, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, et al. Targeted ultrasound in women younger than 30 years with focal breast signs or symptoms: out- comes analyses and management implications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195(6):1472–1477. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
719 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Lehman CD, Lee CI, Loving VA, et al. Accuracy and value of breast ultra- sound for primary imaging evaluation of symptomatic women 30–39 years of age. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199(5):1169–1177. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
720 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Ciatto S, Visioli C, Paci E, et al. Breast density as a determinant of interval cancer at mammographic screening. Br J Cancer 2004;90(2):393–396. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
721 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal pat- terns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159–1169. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 2 |
722 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87(21):1622–1629. | 6 | 0.034 | 0.042 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.034 | 0.042 | 2 |
723 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet oncol 2005;6(10): 798–808. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 2 |
724 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(3):227–236. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
725 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Lee CI, Bassett LW, Lehman CD. Breast density legislation and opportunities for patient-centered outcomes research. Radiology 2012;264(3):632–636. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
726 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012;307(13):1394–1404. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 4 |
727 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Kelly KM, Richwald GA. Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011;32(4):273–280. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
728 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Lin X, Wang J, Han F, et al. Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(5):873–878. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 1 |
729 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75–89. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
730 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G, et al. Multicenter comparative mul- timodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 2007;242(3): 698–715. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
731 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mam- mography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292(11):1317–1325. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1 |
732 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 2006;295(20):2374–2384. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 4 |
733 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultra- sound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(33):8469–8476. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
734 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic reso- nance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005;365(9473):1769–1778. | 6 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 1 |
735 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Gur D. Tomosynthesis: potential clinical role in breast imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189(3):614–615. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
736 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20(1):16–24. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 2 |
737 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Gong X, Glick SJ, Liu B, et al. A computer simulation study comparing lesion detection accuracy with digital mammography, breast tomosyn- thesis, and cone-beam CT breast imaging. Med Phys 2006;33(4):1041– 1052. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.075 | 0.087 | 0.095 | 0.092 | 0.09 | 0.098 | 1 |
738 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190(4):865–869. | 6 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 5 |
739 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol 2009;193(2):586–591. | 6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1 |
740 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Moadel RM. Breast cancer imaging devices. Semin Nucl Med 2011; 41(3):229–241. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 2 |
741 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the health insurance plan project and its sequelae, 1963–1986. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 2 |
742 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 2. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 1992;147(10):1477–1488. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1 |
743 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Baines CJ, Miller AB, Bassett AA. Physical examination. Its role as a sin- gle screening modality in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1989;63(9):1816–1822. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 6 |
744 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Fenton JJ, Rolnick SJ, Harris EL, et al. Specificity of clinical breast exami- nation in community practice. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22(3):332–337. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
745 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Baxter N, Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health C. Preventive health care, 2001 update: should women be routinely taught breast self-exami- nation to screen for breast cancer? CMAJ 2001;164(13):1837–1846. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 2 |
746 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, et al. Breast cancer screening: a sum- mary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(5 Part 1):347–360. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 0.099 | 2 |
747 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM, et al. Randomized trial of breast self-exam- ination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(19):1445– 1457. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1 |
748 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Harvey BJ, Miller AB, Baines CJ, et al. Effect of breast self-examina- tion techniques on the risk of death from breast cancer. CMAJ 1997; 157(9):1205–1212. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 1 |
749 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | BD. First Ever FDA-Cleared Breast Self-Examination Pad to Help Women Now Available in Drug Stores and Major Chains Nationwide. News & Events 1999; http://www.bd.com/contentmanager/b_article.asp?Item_ ID=21252&ContentType_ID=1&BusinessCode=20001&d=&s=&dTitle=&dc | 6 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 0.009 | 0.009 | 6 |
750 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | =&dcTitle=. Accessed November 20, 2012. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.063 | 0.042 | 0.036 | 0.021 | 0.095 | 1 |
751 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, et al. Long-term effects of mammog- raphy screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359(9310):909–919. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 1 |
752 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A ran- domized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(51):305–312. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 2 |
753 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, et al. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: updateonbreastcancermortality. JNatl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22): 37–41. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 5 |
754 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, Brown HK, et al. 14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening. Lancet 1999;353(9168):1903–1908. | 6 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1 |
755 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Frisell J, Lidbrink E, Hellstrom L, et al. Followup after 11 years—update of mortality results in the Stockholm mammographic screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;45(3):263–270. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 2 |
756 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screen- ing by age. New results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 1995;75(10):2507–2517. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 1 |
757 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):63–67. | 6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1 |
758 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg Breast Cancer Screening Trial: preliminary results on breast cancer mortality for women aged 39–49. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):53–55. | 6 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 3 |
759 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, et al. Canadian National Breast Screening Study: 1. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. CMAJ 1992;147(10):1459–1476. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 1 |
760 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, et al. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;368(9552):2053–2060. | 6 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 4 |
761 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, et al. Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 1982;69(2):349–355. | 6 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 3 |
762 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | National Cancer Institute. Screening and testing to detect breast cancer. 2013; http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/screening/breast. Accessed | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 2 |
763 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | January 4, 2013. | 6 | 0.095 | 0.087 | 0.067 | 0.093 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.095 | 1 |
764 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmo mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297(6654):943–948. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 4 |
765 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Nystrom L, Rutqvist LE, Wall S, et al. Breast cancer screening with mammography: Overview of Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 1993;341(8851):973–978. | 6 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 2 |
766 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Tabar L, Gad A, Holmberg L, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet 1985;1:829. | 6 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 1 |
767 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Nystrom L, Larsson LG, Wall S, et al. An overview of the Swedish ran- domised mammography trials: total mortality pattern and the represen- tivity of the study cohorts. J Med Screen 1996;3(2):85–87. | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
768 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Tabar L, Gad A, Holmberg L, et al. Significant reduction in advanced breast cancer. Results of the first seven years of mammography screen- ing in Kopparberg, Sweden. Diagn Imaging Clin Med 1985;54:158–164. | 6 | 0.023 | 0.076 | 0.067 | 0.054 | 0.067 | 0.054 | 0.076 | 2 |
769 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Mushlin AI, Kouides RW, Shapiro DE. Estimating the accuracy of screen- ing mammography: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 1998;14(2):143–153. | 6 | 0.067 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.067 | 1 |
770 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Roberts MM, Alexander FE, Anderson TJ, et al. Edinburgh trial of screen- ing for breast cancer: mortality at seven years. Lancet 1990;335(8684): 241–246. | 6 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.1 | 4 |
771 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Fenton J, Barton M, Geiger A, et al. Screening clinical breast examination: how often does it miss lethal breast cancer? JNCI Monograph 2005;35: 1–5. | 6 | 0.098 | 0.076 | 0.042 | 0.088 | 0.088 | 0.088 | 0.098 | 1 |
772 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Frisell J, Eklund G, Hellstrom L, et al. Randomized study of mammogra- phy screening—preliminary report on mortality in the Stockholm trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1991;18(1):49–56. | 6 | 0.023 | 0.076 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.087 | 0.076 | 0.093 | 4 |
773 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Mandelblatt JS, Cronin KA, Bailey S, et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009;151(10):738–747. | 6 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 3 |
774 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammogra- phy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(1):CD001877. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 2 |
775 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Independent UKPoBCS. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screen- ing: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380(9855):1778–1786. | 6 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 1 |
776 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Glasziou PP, Woodward AJ, Mahon CM. Mammographic screening trials for women aged under 50. A quality assessment and meta-analysis. Med J Aust 1995;162(12):625–629. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 2 |
777 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Barth RJ Jr, Gibson GR, Carney PA, et al. Detection of breast cancer on screening mammography allows patients to be treated with less-toxic therapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(1):324–329. | 6 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 4 |
778 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Leung JW. Screening mammography reduces morbidity of breast cancer treatment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184(5):1508–1509. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 3 |
779 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Johns LE, Moss SM, Age Trial Management G. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19(11):2758–2764. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1 |
780 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (NCI). 2012; http://breastscreen- ing.cancer.gov/. Accessed November 20, 2012. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 5 |
781 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Kleit AN, Ruiz JF. False positive mammograms and detection controlled estimation. Health Serv Res 2003;38(4):1207–1228. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 2 |
782 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Patella A, Marziani R, Schippa A, et al. Breast density changes associated with hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women. Effects on the specificity and sensitivity of mammographic screening. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 2005;26(5):485–490. | 6 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 3 |
783 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92(20):1657–1666. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 2 |
784 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, et al. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95(18):1384–1393. | 6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 4 |
785 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Elmore JG, Lee CI. Radiation-related risks of imaging studies. UpToDate. | 6 | 0.015 | 0.023 | 0.047 | 0.068 | 0.091 | 0.082 | 0.091 | 5 |
786 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | 2012. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/radiation-related-risks-of-imag- | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 2 |
787 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | ing-studies. Accessed November 21, 2012. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 5 |
788 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Olsson H, Baldetorp B, Ferno M, et al. Relation between the rate of tumour cell proliferation and latency time in radiation associated breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2003;3:11. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 2 |
789 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Janjan NA, Zellmer DL. Calculated risk of breast cancer following mantle irradiation determined by measured dose. Cancer Detect Prev 1992;16 (5-6):273–282. | 6 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 6 |
790 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Helzlsouer KJ, Harris EL, Parshad R, et al. Familial clustering of breast cancer: possible interaction between DNA repair proficiency and radiation exposure in the development of breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1995;64(1):14–17. | 6 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 5 |
791 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Swift M, Morrell D, Massey RB, et al. Incidence of cancer in 161 families affected by ataxia-telangiectasia. N Engl J Med 1991;325(26):1831–1836. | 6 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 1 |
792 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Suleiman OH, Spelic DC, McCrohan JL, et al. Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada. Radiology 1999;210(2):345–351. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1 |
793 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, et al. The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology 2005;14(11):917–938. | 6 | 0.06 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 2 |
794 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, et al. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol 1991;10(4):259–267. | 6 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1 |
795 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst | 6 | 0.015 | 0.023 | 0.046 | 0.078 | 0.091 | 0.082 | 0.091 | 5 |
796 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | 2010;102(9):605–613. | 6 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 1 |
797 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestima- tions of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993;328(17):1237–1243. | 6 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 5 |
798 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Gotzsche PC, Jorgensen KJ, Maehlen J, et al. Estimation of lead time and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Br J Cancer 2009;100(1):219; author reply 220. | 6 | 0.005 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.007 | 0.008 | 5 |
799 | Breast Cancer Screening | CONCLUSION | null | nan nan | Hemminki K, Rawal R, Bermejo JL. Mammographic screening is dra- matically changing age-incidence data for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22(22):4652–4653. | 6 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.