Original Article
Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway
N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1203-1210September 23, 2010DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000727
- Abstract
Background
A challenge in quantifying the effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality is to provide valid comparison groups. The use of historical control subjects does not take into account chronologic trends associated with advances in breast-cancer awareness and treatment.
Methods
The Norwegian breast-cancer screening program was started in 1996 and expanded geographically during the subsequent 9 years. Women between the ages of 50 and 69 years were offered screening mammography every 2 years. We compared the incidence-based rates of death from breast cancer in four groups: two groups of women who from 1996 through 2005 were living in counties with screening (screening group) or without screening (nonscreening group); and two historical-comparison groups that from 1986 through 1995 mirrored the current groups.
Results
We analyzed data from 40,075 women with breast cancer. The rate of death was reduced by 7.2 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the screening group as compared with the historical screening group (rate ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.81) and by 4.8 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the nonscreening group as compared with the historical nonscreening group (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93; P<0.001 for both comparisons), for a relative reduction in mortality of 10% in the screening group (P=0.13). Thus, the difference in the reduction in mortality between the current and historical groups that could be attributed to screening alone was 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years, or a third of the total reduction of 7.2 deaths.
Conclusions
The availability of screening mammography was associated with a reduction in the rate of death from breast cancer, but the screening itself accounted for only about a third of the total reduction. (Funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway.)
Media in This Article
Figure 1
The Four Study Groups, According to Region and Year.Figure 2
Rates of Death among Women between the Ages of 50 and 69 Years in the Four Study Groups.Article Activity
- Article
On the basis of several randomized clinical trials,1-3 the World Health Organization concluded in 2002 that screening mammography for women between the ages of 50 and 69 years reduced the rate of death from breast cancer by 25%.4 Nevertheless, the use of screening mammography is still debated, chiefly because of concern regarding methodologic limitations in some of the randomized trials.5 In addition, the benefit of mammography when implemented in a population-based service program remains poorly quantified. Therefore, continued evaluation of breast-cancer screening programs is warranted.6
The main challenge in quantifying the reduction in mortality from nonrandomized screening programs is to provide valid comparison groups. Although historical, prescreening control groups are often used, such a comparison has important limitations because it does not take into account confounding by chronological trends in breast-cancer mortality, reflecting such factors as advances in breast-cancer awareness and treatment. According to a statistical model based on data regarding breast-cancer mortality in the United States from 1975 through 2000, only half the observed reduction in mortality was causally related to the mammographic intervention itself, whereas the other half was attributable to improved management.7 To establish a valid comparison group, we took advantage of several unique features of the nationwide Breast Cancer Screening Program in Norway, which was implemented by means of gradual geographic expansion over a 9-year period.
Methods
Screening Program
Norway, with a total population of 4.8 million, has a public health care system. Patients generally receive treatment in their county of residence, and there is no private primary care for breast cancer.8 The nationwide Cancer Registry of Norway is close to 100% complete.9,10 Patients are identified in the registry by their individually unique national registration number, which includes the date of birth. The registry runs the Breast Cancer Screening Program, which began as a pilot project in 4 of the 19 Norwegian counties in 1996. Two years later, the government decided to expand the program, and over a period of 9 years, the remaining 15 counties were enrolled in a staggered fashion11 (Figure 1Figure 1
The Four Study Groups, According to Region and Year.). The rollout of the program followed no specific geographic pattern. Since 2005, all women in the country between the ages of 50 and 69 years have been invited to participate in screening mammography every 2 years.Before enrollment in the program, each county was required to establish multidisciplinary breast-cancer management teams and breast units.12 As a result, breast-cancer management became centralized for all residents within each county, and dedicated teams of radiologists, radiologic technologists, pathologists, surgeons, oncologists, and nurses managed the care of all patients, regardless of age.
The screening program is organized with 26 stationary and 4 mobile screening units.13 The Central Population Registry of Norway identifies eligible women on the basis of their national registration number. Invitations are mailed to each eligible woman, suggesting a time for an appointment.14 Overall, 77% of all women who are invited participate in the program.15 In accordance with European guidelines, mammograms are obtained in two views, which are independently read by two radiologists.12
Study Groups
From Statistics Norway we retrieved information on the Norwegian female population, according to county, from January 1, 1986, through December 31, 2005.16 From the Cancer Registry, we retrieved data on all women who had received a diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, including age, tumor stage, date and county of residence at diagnosis, date and cause of death, and information on whether the diagnosis had been made before or after the implementation of the screening program.
By comparing two current groups on the basis of whether screening mammography was available in the county, we would avoid confounding by factors such as improvements in treatment and heightened awareness, temporal changes that may be associated with a reduction in breast-cancer mortality. However, we could not make direct comparisons between these two groups because of the nonconstant risk of death from breast cancer according to the time since diagnosis and differences in rates of death from breast cancer between counties before implementation of the screening program.15 To adjust for such differences and to achieve equal follow-up time in each county, we established two historical comparison groups that mirrored the implementation of the screening program during the 10-year period preceding the screening program.
Thus, we defined four groups of women, including those in whom a first invasive breast cancer had been diagnosed: two current groups of women who from 1996 through 2005 were living either in counties in which the screening program had been implemented (screening group) or in counties in which the program had not been implemented (nonscreening group), and two historical-comparison groups that from 1986 through 1995 mirrored the county residence of the current groups before the implementation of the screening program (Figure 1) (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).
As pointed out, each county was required to establish multidisciplinary breast-cancer management teams and breast units before enrollment in the national screening program. As a result, the screening program consists of two components: screening mammography and care from multidisciplinary teams. For women between the ages of 50 and 69 years who were invited to participate in the program, the change in mortality after the introduction of the screening program can be related to both the introduction of screening mammography and the establishment of multidisciplinary teams. However, for women who were outside the age range that was eligible for the screening program (i.e., those between the ages of 20 and 49 years and those between the ages of 70 and 84 years) in the counties in which screening was available, the change in mortality could be related only to the establishment of multidisciplinary teams, since these women were not invited to undergo mammography.
Study Oversight
The Norwegian Social Science Data Services approved the study, which was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway. The study was conducted in accordance with the protocol, which is available at NEJM.org.
Statistical Analysis
We obtained information on breast cancer as the underlying cause of death through regular linkage between the Cancer Registry and the Cause of Death Registry at Statistics Norway. To isolate the effect of the breast-cancer screening program, our calculation of mortality in the screening group includes only deaths from breast cancer in women who received the diagnosis after the screening program was implemented (so-called incidence-based mortality).17-19 The use of incidence-based mortality avoids the inclusion of breast-cancer deaths that occurred after implementation of the screening program but reflected diagnoses that were made before the program was implemented. So as not to bias our comparisons, we calculated the rate of death in all groups using the incidence-based method. All women in whom breast cancer was diagnosed and who died of breast cancer after implementation of the screening program were included in the screening group, regardless of whether they received the diagnosis at a screening or a diagnostic examination.
On the basis of the date of implementation of the screening program in each county, we grouped the 19 counties into six regions; each county within a given region entered the program at approximately the same time (see the Supplementary Appendix). We compared the rates of death separately for each region. Thus, the regional comparisons have the same follow-up time. This grouping tended to reduce random variation resulting from small numbers and permitted the evaluation of changes in mortality in the same region over a period of time. First, we compared women in the nonscreening group with their historical counterparts to determine the temporal change in mortality that was not attributable to the introduction of the screening program and that was likely to reflect improved treatment and earlier clinical diagnosis. Then, we compared women in the screening group with their historical counterparts to determine the change in mortality after implementation of the screening program. In this second comparison, the difference in the rate of death between the two groups can be attributed both to the screening program and to temporal trends in mortality that were unrelated to the screening program. Thus, the reduction in mortality that was related to the screening program was the difference between the rate ratio for death among women in the screening group as compared with their historical counterparts and the rate ratio for death among women in the nonscreening group as compared with their historical counterparts.
We estimated rates of death from breast cancer in the four study groups according to the age at diagnosis (20 to 49 years, 50 to 69 years, and 70 to 84 years). All tests of statistical significance were one-sided, and a P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. (For additional details on the statistical analysis plan, see the Supplementary Appendix.)
Results
Subjects
A total of 40,075 women received a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1986 and 2005. During the follow-up period, 4791 of these women (12%) died from breast cancer. Of the women who died, 423 (9%) had received the diagnosis after the introduction of the screening program. The total follow-up time for the study was 31,613,529 person-years, with an average of 2.2 years and a maximum of 8.9 years of follow-up for women with breast cancer. Among women between the ages of 50 and 69 years, 6967 received a diagnosis of breast cancer between 1986 and 1995, as compared with 12,056 who received the diagnosis between 1996 and 2005. In the latter group, 7975 women (66%) had been invited to participate in screening mammography. In the first screening round, a total of 454,331 women had been invited.
Among women between the ages of 50 and 69 years in the screening group, the rate of death was 18.1 per 100,000 person-years, as compared with 25.3 per 100,000 person-years among their historical counterparts, for a difference of 7.2 deaths per 100,000 person-years (rate ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.81; P<0.001), a relative reduction of 28% (Table 1Table 1
Rates of Death from Breast Cancer, According to Study Group and Age. and Figure 2Figure 2Rates of Death among Women between the Ages of 50 and 69 Years in the Four Study Groups.). Among women in the nonscreening group, the rate of death was 21.2 per 100,000 person-years, as compared with 26.0 per 100,000 person-years among their historical counterparts, for a difference of 4.8 deaths per 100,000 person-years (rate ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.93; P<0.001), a relative reduction of 18% (Table 1 and Figure 2). Given the reduction in mortality among women in the nonscreening group, as compared with their historical counterparts, the relative reduction among women in the screening group was 10% (95% CI, −4 to 24; P=0.13). Since the differences between the current groups and historical groups were 7.2 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the screening group and 4.8 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the nonscreening group, only the overall between-group difference — 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years (95% CI, −1.7 to 6.5) — can be attributed to the screening program alone, representing a third of the total estimated reduction in mortality (2.4 of 7.2).Among women between the ages of 50 and 69 years in the screening group, those with stage I tumors had a relative reduction in mortality of 16%, as compared with their historical counterparts (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.11); among women in the nonscreening group, the corresponding reduction was 13% (rate ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.23). Among women with stage II tumors, those in the screening group had a marked 29% reduction in mortality, as compared with their historical counterparts (rate ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.86); among women in the nonscreening group, the reduction was 7% (rate ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.12). Among women with stage III or IV tumors, the improvement in prognosis was similar with and without the screening program (rate ratio for death in both groups, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.86 for the screening group and 0.56 to 0.87 for the nonscreening group).
Among women who were not eligible for screening because they were younger than 50 years of age or older than 69 years of age, there was also a significant reduction in the rate of death from breast cancer, as compared with their historical counterparts (Table 1). Women in these age groups who were in the screening group but were not eligible for the screening program had the benefit of the multidisciplinary breast-cancer management teams. Among women under the age of 50 years, there was a nonsignificant relative increase in mortality of 4% (P=1.00) after the introduction of the screening program (Table 1). Among women who were 70 years of age or older, the relative reduction in mortality of 8% (P=0.09) could be attributed to the establishment of multidisciplinary teams in the screening program (Table 1 and Figure 3Figure 3
Incidence-Based Rate Ratios for Death from Breast Cancer, According to Age Group.).Discussion
In our study, the rate of death from breast cancer was reduced by the introduction of a breast-cancer screening program. However, when we took into account temporal trends in breast-cancer mortality caused by other factors, the apparent effect was considerably smaller than expected. Indeed, the take-home message is that breast-cancer screening was associated with an absolute reduction of 10 percentage points in the rate of death from breast cancer. However, the screening program accounted for only one third of the total reduction in mortality among women who were invited to participate in the program. For women between the ages of 50 and 69 years, it was impossible to determine whether the reduction in mortality resulted from earlier diagnoses associated with screening mammography or from the management of treatment by an interdisciplinary team. To our surprise, the reduction in breast-cancer mortality among women between the ages of 70 and 84 years was largely the same as that in the screening group. Although none of the older women were invited to undergo mammography, they were all treated by multidisciplinary teams specializing in breast-cancer care.
The fundamental prerequisite for our analysis was the staggered implementation of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. This structure provided the opportunity to identify a nonscreening group in order to reduce or perhaps eliminate confounding as a result of temporal changes in breast-cancer mortality attributable to factors other than screening. Additional strengths of our study include its nationwide design, the large size, the high proportion of women participating in the screening program (77%), and the complete follow-up. The incidence-based approach for calculating rates of death also reduced the likelihood that results were obscured by deaths from breast cancers that were diagnosed before the screening program was implemented.
Is it possible that the lead time created a bias in calculating incidence-based mortality? We counted the rate of death from breast cancer only if the death and diagnosis occurred in that group. For example, in the screening group, a death would be attributed to breast cancer only if the disease was diagnosed early by means of screening mammography or if the disease was clinically diagnosed while the woman was in the group. However, for women in whom an early diagnosis was made at screening and who later died of breast cancer, the diagnosis would have been made clinically at an unknown time within the study period. Thus, the lead time plays no role in the calculation of the rate of death, and we believe that the mortality calculations for all groups are free of this bias.
Our study also has limitations. First, the maximum follow-up time of 8.9 years may be too short to show the full potential of the screening program. However, in randomized, controlled trials, there was a reduction in mortality after 4 years, with an increasing effect up to 10 years.20 In our study, the reduction in mortality was seen mainly in the first 4 years of follow-up (data not shown). Second, since the screening program was implemented gradually in the counties, diagnoses were made more recently in the screening group than in the nonscreening group (Figure 1) and there may be an overestimation of the mortality benefit associated with the screening program. Third, some of the women in the nonscreening group may have actually undergone mammography (opportunistic screening), potentially resulting in an underestimation of the benefit of screening. Unfortunately, we have no precise information about the numbers of such examinations. However, several circumstances provide reassuring evidence against contamination by opportunistic screening as an important source of bias. Before the implementation of the screening program, access to mammography was limited, especially in the predominantly rural areas of the country, and the reduction in mortality was of similar magnitude in urban and rural areas (data not shown). Also, the public health care system provides no financial incentives for offering screening mammography. Finally, the organized screening mammography entailed a substantial increase in diagnosed cases of breast cancer, with no similar trends in counties before they joined the program.
Our finding that only about one third of the reduction in mortality can be directly attributed to breast-cancer screening is in line with evidence from the National Health Service screening program in the United Kingdom.21 Other studies have shown a relative reduction in the rate of death from breast cancer of 6.4 to 25% with follow-up periods of 10 years or less.18,19,21-25 However, most of these studies have compared current breast-cancer mortality with mortality in a period preceding the introduction of screening mammography, with no ability to account for the confounding effect of temporal trends.18,21,23-25 As our data show, such confounding may entail a considerable overestimation of the mortality benefit of mammography.23-25
The implementation of multidisciplinary breast-cancer management teams was intended to provide comprehensive and integrated optimization of breast-cancer care. As a corollary, it is not possible to attribute the reduction in mortality to any specific component of such a change in health care, although increased breast-cancer awareness, higher sensitivity of diagnostic techniques, and improvements in treatment can all be conducive to a lower rate of death. The greatest reduction in the death rate associated with mammography was observed among women with stage II tumors. This finding might be explained by selective stage migration among screening participants26 as a result of more sensitive staging techniques (including the use of sentinel-node biopsy, which increased from virtually no use in 1998 to a 65% rate of use in 200415) and improvements in treatment.
We conclude that our results support the evidence that screening mammography reduces the rate of death from breast cancer. However, the magnitude of this benefit seems modest in the high-attendance, nationwide screening program we evaluated. Most important, the apparent benefit conveyed by optimized patient care may be missed unless breast-cancer screening is integrated into a well-functioning health care system that is available to the entire population.
Supported by the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Research Council of Norway.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
We thank Michael Bretthauer, M.D., Ph.D., of Oslo University Hospital for valuable help with editing and scientific discussion during the preparation of the manuscript.
Source Information
From the Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo (M.K., F.L., H.-O.A.); the Departments of Epidemiology (M.K., H.-O.A.) and Biostatistics (M.Z.), Harvard School of Public Health; and the Dana–Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School (M.Z., H.-O.A.) — all in Boston; and the Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm (H.-O.A.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Kalager at Oslo University Hospital, Department of Surgery, Montebello, 0310 Oslo, Norway, or at mkalager@hsph.harvard.edu.
- References
References
1
Chu KC Smart CR Tarone RE
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Miller AB Baines CJ To T Wall C
Web of Science | Medline3
Nystrom L Rutqvist LE Walls S
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Vainio H, Bianchini F, eds. IARC handbook of cancer prevention. Vol 7. Breast cancer screening. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2002.
5
Gotzsche PC Nielsen M
Medline6
Nystrom L
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Berry DA Corin KA Plevritis SK
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline8
Consumer report 4/2002. Oslo: The Consumer Council of Norway. (In Norwegian.) (Accessed August 30, 2010, at http://forbrukerportalen.no/filearchive/4_2002_s_1_48.pdf.)
9
Larsen IK Smastuen M Johannesen TB
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Tingulstad S Haldorsen T Norstein J Hagen B Skjeldestad FE
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline11
Kalager M Haldorsen T Bretthauer M Hoff G Thoresen SO Adami HO
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline12
Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1996.
13
Erzaas A. Quality assurance manual of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Oslo: The Cancer Registry of Norway, 2003. (In Norwegian.) (Available at http://www.kreftregisteret.no.)
14
Wang H Karesen R Hervik A Thoresen S
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline15
Kalager M Karesen R Wist E
CrossRef | Medline16
Statistics Norway home page. (Accessed August 30, 2010, at http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/Default_FR.asp?PXSid=0&nvl=true&PLanguage=0&tilside=selecttable/MenuSelS.asp&SubjectCode=02.)
17
The Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline18
Tabar L Duffy SW Yen MF
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline19
Hakama M Pukkala E Heikkila M Kallio M
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline20
Nystrom L Andersson I Bjurstam N Frisell J Nordenskjold B Rutqvist LE
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline21
Blanks RG Moss SM McGahan CE Quinn MJ Babb PJ
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline22
Olsen AH Njor SH Vejborg I
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline23
Tabar L Yen MF Vitak B Chen HHT Smith R Duffy SW
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline24
Otto SJ Fracherboud J Looman CWN
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
Jonsson H Nystrom L Tornberg S Lenner P
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline26
Feinstein AR Sosin DM Wells CK
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (164)
Citing Articles
1
Rianne, de GelderEveline A.M., HeijnsdijkJacques, FracheboudGerrit, DraismaHarry J., de Koning. (2015) The effects of population-based mammography screening starting between age 40 and 50 in the presence of adjuvant systemic therapy. International Journal of Cancer 137:10.1002/ijc.v137.1, 165-172
CrossRef2
Y., YuanM., LiJ., YangM., Winget. (2015) Using administrative data to estimate time to breast cancer diagnosis and percent of screen-detected breast cancers - a validation study in Alberta, Canada. European Journal of Cancer Care 24:10.1111/ecc.2015.24.issue-3, 367-375
CrossRef3
Daniel B., Kopans. (2015) An open letter to panels that are deciding guidelines for breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 151, 19-25
CrossRef4
Tanya D., GeertseRoland, HollandJanine M. H., TimmersEllen, PaapRuud M., PijnappelMireille J. M., BroedersGerard J., den Heeten. (2015) Value of audits in breast cancer screening quality assurance programmes. European Radiology
CrossRef5
Henry G., KaplanJudith A., MalmgrenMary K., AtwoodGregory S., Calip. (2015) Effect of treatment and mammography detection on breast cancer survival over time: 1990-2007. Cancer, n/a-n/a
CrossRef6
Wen-Ling, LeeFa-Kung, LeeMing-Kwang, Shyu. (2015) Mammography screening causes anxiety in women. Journal of the Chinese Medical Association 78, 261-262
CrossRef7
I., BarcoC., ChabreraM., García FontN., GimenezM., FraileJ.M., LainM., PiquerasM.C., VidalM., TorrasS., GonzálezA., PessarrodonaJ., BarcoJ., CassadóA. García, Fernández. (2015) Comparison of screened and non-screened breast cancer patients in relation to age: a two-institution study. Clinical Breast Cancer
CrossRef8
Maureen, GillanFiona, Gilbert. Clinical Utility of CADe for Screening Mammography: A European Perspective. 2015:, 357-374.
CrossRef9
Rolando, CamachoCecilia, SepúlvedaDiogo, NevesMarion, PiñerosMaria, VillanuevaJean-Marie, DangouIbtihal, FadhilGauden, GaleaRenu, GargSilvana, Luciani. (2015) Cancer control capacity in 50 low- and middle-income countries. Global Public Health, 1-15
CrossRef10
Suh-May, YenPei-Tseng, KungWen-Chen, Tsai. (2015) Mammography usage with relevant factors among women with mental disabilities in Taiwan: A nationwide population-based study. Research in Developmental Disabilities 37, 182-188
CrossRef11
J. T., LeeZ., HuangS., BasuC., Millett. (2015) The inverse equity hypothesis: Does it apply to coverage of cancer screening in middle-income countries?. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 69, 149-155
CrossRef12
Hans-Heino, Hille. (2015) Mammografiescreening — keine Lösung der Brustkrebsfrüherkennung. gynäkologie + geburtshilfe 20, 36-38
CrossRef13
Ying, ChenTor A, KlingenElisabeth, WikHans, AasEinar, VigelandKnut, LiestølØystein, GarredJan, MæhlenLars A, AkslenJon, Lømo. (2014) Breast cancer stromal elastosis is associated with mammography screening detection, low Ki67 expression and favourable prognosis in a population-based study. Diagnostic Pathology 9
CrossRef14
Felipe, AdesChistelle, SenterreDimitrios, ZardavasEvandro, de AzambujaRazvan, PopescuFlorence, ParentMartine, Piccart. (2014) An exploratory analysis of the factors leading to delays in cancer drug reimbursement in the European Union: The trastuzumab case. European Journal of Cancer 50, 3089-3097
CrossRef15
Dana S., AL MousaClaudia, Mello-ThomsElaine A., RyanWarwick B., LeeMariusz W., PietrzykWarren M., ReedRobert, HeardAnn, PoulosJennifer, TanYanpeng, LiPatrick C., Brennan. (2014) Mammographic Density and Cancer Detection. Academic Radiology 21, 1377-1385
CrossRef16
Dana S., AL MousaPatrick C., BrennanElaine A., RyanWarwick B., LeeJennifer, TanClaudia, Mello-Thoms. (2014) How Mammographic Breast Density Affects Radiologists' Visual Search Patterns. Academic Radiology 21, 1386-1393
CrossRef17
Eivind, BjerkaasRanjan, ParajuliAnders, EngelandGertraud, MaskarinecElisabete, WeiderpassInger Torhild, Gram. (2014) The association between lifetime smoking exposure and breast cancer mortality - results from a Norwegian cohort. Cancer Medicine 3:10.1002/cam4.2014.3.issue-5, 1448-1457
CrossRef18
Ruth, TupperKaryn, Holm. (2014) Screening Mammography and Breast Cancer Reduction: Examining the Evidence. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners 10, 721-728
CrossRef19
Daniel, BeckerShannon, RyemonJessica, GrossBenjamin, LevyMichael, GrossbardRonald, Ennis. (2014) Cancer trends among the extreme elderly in the era of cancer screening. Journal of Geriatric Oncology 5, 408-414
CrossRef20
A., ColdmanN., PhillipsC., WilsonK., DeckerA. M., ChiarelliJ., BrissonB., ZhangJ., PayneG., DoyleR., Ahmad. (2014) Pan-Canadian Study of Mammography Screening and Mortality from Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 106, dju261-dju261
CrossRef21
Montse, Puig-VivesGemma, Osca-GelisCarla, Camprubí-FontM. Loreto, VilardellAngel, IzquierdoRafael, Marcos-Gragera. (2014) Proporción de cáncer de mama en mujeres de 50 a 69 años de Girona según el método de detección. Medicina Clínica 143, 300-302
CrossRef22
Daniel B., KopansMatthew L., WebbBlake, Cady. (2014) The 20-year effort to reduce access to mammography screening: Historical facts dispute a commentary in Cancer. Cancer 120:10.1002/cncr.v120.18, 2792-2799
CrossRef23
Sung-In, JangKyoung-Hee, ChoSun Jung, KimKwang-Sig, LeeEun-Cheol, Park. (2014) Setting a Health Policy Research Agenda for Controlling Cancer Burden in Korea. Cancer Research and Treatment
CrossRef24
Nagi S, El SaghirRaghid N, Charara. (2014) International screening and early detection of breast cancer: resource-sensitive, age- and risk-specific guidelines. Breast Cancer Management 3, 397-407
CrossRef25
Løberg , Magnus Kalager , Mette Holme , Øyvind Hoff , Geir Adami , Hans-Olov Bretthauer , Michael . (2014) Long-Term Colorectal-Cancer Mortality after Adenoma Removal. New England Journal of Medicine 371:9, 799-807
Free Full Text26
HYEJIN, PARKMIKYUNG, MOONJUNG HOON, BAEG. (2014) Association of eHealth Literacy With Cancer Information Seeking and Prior Experience With Cancer Screening. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 1
CrossRef27
F., MoliniéA., VanierA. S., WoronoffA. V., GuizardP., DelafosseM., VeltenL., Daubisse-MarliacP., ArveuxB., Tretarre. (2014) Trends in breast cancer incidence and mortality in France 1990–2008. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 147, 167-175
CrossRef28
David Murray, RoderGail Heather, WardGelareh, FarshidPeter Grantley, Gill. (2014) Influence of Service Characteristics on High Priority Performance Indicators and Standards in the BreastScreen Australia Program. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention 15, 5901-5908
CrossRef29
Julie, HornSigne, OpdahlMonica J., EngstrømPål R., RomundstadSteinar, TretliOlav A., HaugenAnna M., BofinLars J., VattenBjørn Olav, Åsvold. (2014) Reproductive history and the risk of molecular breast cancer subtypes in a prospective study of Norwegian women. Cancer Causes & Control 25, 881-889
CrossRef30
M., KalagerM., LobergM., BretthauerH.-O., Adami. (2014) Comparative analysis of breast cancer mortality following mammography screening in Denmark and Norway. Annals of Oncology 25, 1137-1143
CrossRef31
Ansgar, Wübker. (2014) Explaining variations in breast cancer screening across European countries. The European Journal of Health Economics 15, 497-514
CrossRef32
Stephen A., Feig. (2014) Screening Mammography Benefit Controversies. Radiologic Clinics of North America 52, 455-480
CrossRef33
A., Scharl. (2014) Mammographiescreening. Der Gynäkologe 47, 325-333
CrossRef34
L., CeugnartM., DeghayeP., VenninS., HaberS., Taieb. (2014) Dépistage organisé du cancer du sein : des éléments de réponse aux controverses récurrentes. Journal de Radiologie Diagnostique et Interventionnelle 95, 357-362
CrossRef35
Peer, ChristiansenIlse, VejborgNiels, KromanIben, HoltenJens Peter, GarnePeter, VedstedSusanne, MøllerElsebeth, Lynge. (2014) Position paper: Breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment in Denmark. Acta Oncologica 53, 433-444
CrossRef36
I., RollinP., SoyerC., Huchon. (2014) Quoi de neuf… sur le dépistage organisé du cancer du sein ? Bénéfices soumis à controverse pour taux de couverture encore insuffisant. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 42, 252-253
CrossRef37
Stamatia V., DestounisAndrea L., ArienoRenee C., MorganDavid, CavanaughPosy J., SeifertPhilip F., MurphyPatricia A., Somerville. (2014) Comparison of Breast Cancers Diagnosed in Screening Patients in Their 40s With and Without Family History of Breast Cancer in a Community Outpatient Facility. American Journal of Roentgenology 202, 928-932
CrossRef38
L., CeugnartM., DeghayeP., VenninS., HaberS., Taieb. (2014) Organized breast screening: Answers to recurring controversies. Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging 95, 355-359
CrossRef39
Carla, CedoliniSerena, BertozziAmbrogio P., LonderoSergio, BernardiLuca, SeriauSerena, ConcinaFederico, CattinAndrea, Risaliti. (2014) Type of Breast Cancer Diagnosis, Screening, and Survival. Clinical Breast Cancer
CrossRef40
Carol H., Lee. (2014) Radiologic Screening for Breast Cancer: Current Controversies. Current Radiology Reports 2
CrossRef41
Donatus U., EkwuemeGery P., GuySun Hee, RimArica, WhiteIngrid J., HallTemeika L., FairleyHazel D., Dean. (2014) Health and Economic Impact of Breast Cancer Mortality in Young Women, 1970–2008. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46, 71-79
CrossRef42
William S., AschMargaret J., Bia. (2014) Oncologic Issues and Kidney Transplantation: A Review of Frequency, Mortality, and Screening. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease 21, 106-113
CrossRef43
Ragnhild Sørum, Falk. (2014) Hvorfor er resultater fra organisert mammografiscreening så vanskelig å tolke?. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 134, 1124-1126
CrossRef44
Gemma, Renart-VicensMontserrat, Puig-VivesJoan, AlbanellFrancesc, CastañerJoana, FerrerMiquel, CarrerasJoan, TarradasMaria, SalaRafael, Marcos-Gragera. (2014) Evaluation of the interval cancer rate and its determinants on the Girona health region’s early breast cancer detection program. BMC Cancer 14, 558
CrossRef45
Romano, DemicheliFederico, Ambrogi. (2014) Comparative benefit from small tumour size and adjuvant chemotherapy: clues for explaining breast cancer mortality decline. BMC Cancer 14, 702
CrossRef46
J., TrufynM.D., HillJ.N., ScottJ., ModiV., CiuraR., FrayneM., GoyalD., LautnerD., BhayanaW.J., DavenportJ.K., MahJ.M., BurtonF., Costello. (2014) The Prevalence of Incidental Findings in Multiple Sclerosis Patients. The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences 41, 49-52
CrossRef47
John G., SpanglerJulienne, Kirk. (2014) Correlation between diabetes prevalence and subsequent cancer mortality in North Carolina counties. Journal of Diabetes Mellitus 04, 1-5
CrossRef48
Rolando, CamachoDiogo, NevesMarion, PiñerosEduardo, RosenblattRobert, BurtonYaima, GalánFeras, HawariSaadettin, KilickapCláudia, NaylorFlorian, NiculaJesus, RenoBhawna, SirohiTatiana, VidaurreKazem, Zendehdel. (2014) Prescription of Cancer Treatment Modalities in Developing Countries: Results from a Multi-Centre Observational Study. Journal of Cancer Therapy 05, 989-999
CrossRef49
Gaetano, CompagnonePaola, AngeliniSara, Domenichelli. (2013) X-ray population exposure from projection radiology and computed tomography in Emilia-Romagna from 2001 to 2010: comparison of ICRP 60 and ICRP 103 weighting factors. La radiologia medica
CrossRef50
Stephen W, DuffyTony Hsiu-Hsi, ChenRobert A, SmithAmy Ming-Fang, YenLaszlo, Tabar. (2013) Real and artificial controversies in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Management 2, 519-528
CrossRef51
Solveig, HofvindGiske, UrsinSteinar, TretliSofie, SebuødegårdBjørn, Møller. (2013) Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer 119:10.1002/cncr.v119.17, 3106-3112
CrossRef52
Matthew L., WebbBlake, CadyJames S., MichaelsonDevon M., BushKatherina Zabicki, CalvilloDaniel B., KopansBarbara L., Smith. (2013) A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer. Cancer, n/a-n/a
CrossRef53
Donald A., Berry. (2013) Breast cancer screening: Controversy of impact. The Breast 22, S73-S76
CrossRef54
C, O'DonoghueL, Esserman. (2013) Recognising the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an opportunity to target improvement. British Journal of Cancer 108, 2200-2201
CrossRef55
M G, MarmotD G, AltmanD A, CameronJ A, DewarS G, ThompsonM, Wilcox. (2013) The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. British Journal of Cancer 108, 2205-2240
CrossRef56
Peter C, GøtzscheKarsten Juhl, JørgensenPeter C, Gøtzsche. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. 2013.
CrossRef57
Meteb, Al-FoheidiMubarak M., Al-MansourEzzeldin M., Ibrahim. (2013) Breast cancer screening: review of benefits and harms, and recommendations for developing and low-income countries. Medical Oncology 30
CrossRef58
L., CeugnartB., SéradourS., TaiebB., Barreau. (2013) Que penser des polémiques récentes sur le dépistage organisé des cancers du sein ?. Oncologie 15, 343-345
CrossRef59
Daniel B., Kopans. (2013) Point: The New England Journal of Medicine Article Suggesting Overdiagnosis From Mammography Screening Is Scientifically Incorrect and Should Be Withdrawn. Journal of the American College of Radiology 10, 317-319
CrossRef60
Gustaf, EdgrenPagona, LagiouDimitrios, TrichopoulosHans-Olov, Adami. (2013) Screening, case finding or primary cancer prevention in the developing world?. European Journal of Epidemiology 28, 287-290
CrossRef61
Nigel J., BundredRamachandran, PrasadJulie, MorrisW. Fiona, KnoxGed, ByrneShan, CheungMary, WilsonGill, Lawrence. (2013) Are symptomatic guidelines for chemotherapy appropriate to ER-positive screen-detected breast cancer (SDBC)?. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 138, 359-368
CrossRef62
Mette, KalagerMagnus, LøbergMichael, Bretthauer. (2013) Limited use of nonprogram screening in Norway. International Journal of Cancer 132:10.1002/ijc.v132.7, 1723-1724
CrossRef63
Philippe, Autier. (2013) Mammography screening before introduction of the national breast screening programme in Norway. International Journal of Cancer 132:10.1002/ijc.v132.7, 1721-1722
CrossRef64
M., EspiéA.-S., HamyS., EskenazyC., CuvierS., Giacchetti. (2013) Epidemiología del cáncer de mama. EMC - Ginecología-Obstetricia 49, 1-19
CrossRef65
Joana, AmaroMilton, SeveroSofia, VilelaSérgio, FonsecaFilipa, FontesCarlo, La VecchiaNuno, Lunet. (2013) Patterns of breast cancer mortality trends in Europe. The Breast
CrossRef66
The biological basis for breast cancer screening and its relevance to treatment. 2013:, 50-66.
CrossRef67
Heidi D., Nelson. Breast Cancer Screening. 2013:, 125-138.
CrossRef68
Stein H., Sundstrøm. (2013) Brystbevarende kirurgi – alltid riktig?. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 133, 1551-1551
CrossRef69
M., BretthauerM., Kalager. (2013) Principles, effectiveness and caveats in screening for cancer. British Journal of Surgery 100, 55-65
CrossRef70
Chantal, DoréFrances, GallagherLine, SaintongeMaude, Hébert. (2013) Breast Cancer Screening Program: Experiences of Canadian Women and Their Unmet Needs. Health Care for Women International 34, 34-49
CrossRef71
Gretchen M., Lentz. History, Physical Examination, and Preventive Health Care. 2013:, 113-128.
CrossRef72
F., TabanE., RapitiG., FiorettaY., WespiD., WeintraubA., HugliH., SchubertG., VlastosM., CastiglioneC., Bouchardy. (2013) Breast cancer management and outcome according to surgeon's affiliation: a population-based comparison adjusted for patient's selection bias. Annals of Oncology 24, 116-125
CrossRef73
Per-Henrik, Zahl. (2013) Informasjonen om mammografiscreening er ikke nøytral. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 133, 1557-1558
CrossRef74
Stephen A., Feig. (2013) Reply. American Journal of Roentgenology 200, W98-W100
CrossRef75
Solveig, Hofvind. (2013) Organisert mammografiscreening - flere fordeler enn ulemper. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 133, 619-620
CrossRef76
Anne Helene, OlsenElsebeth, LyngeSisse H., NjorMerethe, KumleMarit, WaasethTonje, BraatenEiliv, Lund. (2013) Breast cancer mortality in Norway after the introduction of mammography screening. International Journal of Cancer 132:10.1002/ijc.v132.1, 208-214
CrossRef77
Anthony B., Miller. Breast Cancer Screening. 2013:, 1127-1134.
CrossRef78
Bleyer , Archie Welch , H. Gilbert . (2012) Effect of Three Decades of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Incidence. New England Journal of Medicine 367:21, 1998-2005
Free Full Text79
(2012) Mammography Screening for Breast Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine 367:21
Free Full Text80
Miklós, Gresz. (2012) Az emlő rosszindulatú daganata és az emlőszűrés viszonya Magyarországon az Országos Egészségbiztosítási Pénztár adatainak tükrében. Orvosi Hetilap 153, 1745-1751
CrossRef81
Marit, SolbjørJohn-Arne, SkolbekkenAnn Rudinow, SætnanAnne Irene, HagenSiri, Forsmo. (2012) Mammography screening and trust: The case of interval breast cancer. Social Science & Medicine 75, 1746-1752
CrossRef82
K. J., JørgensenM., KalagerP. H., ZahlV. M., Fønnebø. (2012) Comparing attendees with non-attendees in breast screening does not provide useful information about an effect on prognostic features or mortality. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 136, 617-620
CrossRef83
E., AmirP. L., BedardA., OcanaB., Seruga. (2012) Benefits and Harms of Detecting Clinically Occult Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 104, 1542-1547
CrossRef84
M., EspiéA.-S., HamyS., EskenazyC., CuvierS., Giacchetti. (2012) Épidémiologie du cancer du sein. EMC - Gynécologie 7, 1-17
CrossRef85
Xavier, BargallóGorane, SantamaríaMartín, VelascoMontse, del AmoPedro, ArguisMarta, BurrelSebastian, Capurro. (2012) Mammographic features of screening detected pT1 (a–b) invasive breast cancer using BI-RADS lexicon. European Journal of Radiology 81, 2620-2626
CrossRef86
Ana Maria, PedrazaMarina, PollánRoberto, Pastor-BarriusoAnna, Cabanes. (2012) Disparities in breast cancer mortality trends in a middle income country. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 134, 1199-1207
CrossRef87
Solveig, HofvindChristoph I., LeeJoann G., Elmore. (2012) Stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates among participants and non-participants of a population-based mammographic screening program. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 135, 291-299
CrossRef88
Amos, Pines. (2012) Climacteric Commentaries. Climacteric 15, 398-406
CrossRef89
Elena, Melús PalazónCarlos, Coscollar SantaliestraCruz, Bartolomé Moreno. (2012) Mamografía: ¿es incorrecto decir no?. FMC - Formación Médica Continuada en Atención Primaria 19, 389-391
CrossRef90
M. W., Vannier. (2012) Screening Mammography: What Good Is It and How Can We Know If It Works?. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 104, 1039-1040
CrossRef91
P., AutierA., KoechlinM., SmansL., VattenM., Boniol. (2012) Mammography Screening and Breast Cancer Mortality in Sweden. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 104, 1080-1093
CrossRef92
John R., BensonKaty A. T., Teo. (2012) Breast Cancer Local Therapy: What Is Its Effect on Mortality?. World Journal of Surgery 36, 1460-1474
CrossRef93
J., CosteJ.-C., CarelP., Autier. (2012) Les grises réalités du dépistage en population. Revue d'Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 60, 163-165
CrossRef94
Lucy A., PeipinsJacqueline, MillerThomas B., RichardsJanet Kay, BoboTa, LiuMary C., WhiteDjenaba, JosephFlorence, TangkaDonatus U., Ekwueme. (2012) Characteristics of US Counties with No Mammography Capacity. Journal of Community Health
CrossRef95
T.-E., StrandK., BartnesH., Rostad. (2012) National trends in lung cancer surgery. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
CrossRef96
Dea Grip, RiboeTilde Steen, DoganJohn, Brodersen. (2012) Potential biases in colorectal cancer screening using faecal occult blood test. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, no-no
CrossRef97
Hui, ZhaoJennifer H., TektiridisNing, ZhangRobert M., Chamberlain. (2012) Cancer Prevention Health Services Research: An Emerging Field. Journal of Cancer Education
CrossRef98
Cristina, BosettiPaola, BertuccioFabio, LeviLiliane, ChatenoudEva, NegriCarlo, La Vecchia. (2012) The decline in breast cancer mortality in Europe: An update (to 2009). The Breast 21, 77-82
CrossRef99
Robert C., BurtonRobin J., BellGeetha, ThiagarajahChristopher, Stevenson. (2012) Adjuvant therapy, not mammographic screening, accounts for most of the observed breast cancer specific mortality reductions in Australian women since the national screening program began in 1991. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 131, 949-955
CrossRef100
F., CollettiniJ. C., MartinF., DiekmannE., FallenbergF., EngelkenS., PonderT. J., KroenckeB., HammA., Poellinger. (2012) Diagnostic performance of a near-infrared breast imaging system as adjunct to mammography versus X-ray mammography alone. European Radiology 22, 350-357
CrossRef101
C.A., Garcia-EtienneD., ForcelliniA., SagonaF., CaviggioliE., BarbieriG., CorneglianiS., GiannasiC., Tinterri. (2012) Breast reconstruction: A quality measure for breast cancer care?. The Breast 21, 105-106
CrossRef102
(2012) Breast-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine 366:2, 190-192
Free Full Text103
K. K., JacobsenM. v., Euler-Chelpin. (2012) Performance indicators for participation in organized mammography screening. Journal of Public Health
CrossRef104
Marcia C., JavittR. Edward, HendrickJohn D., KeenKarsten Juhl, Jo̸rgensenColin G., Orton. (2012) Recent data show that mammographic screening of asymptomatic women is effective and essential. Medical Physics 39, 4047
CrossRef105
Ho Kyung, KimChang Hwy, LimJesse, TanguaySeungman, YunIan A., Cunningham. (2012) Spectral analysis of fundamental signal and noise performances in photoconductors for mammography. Medical Physics 39, 2478
CrossRef106
Mette, Kalager. (2012) Primum non nocere. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 132, 383-383
CrossRef107
Peter C., GøtzscheKarsten Juhl, JørgensenPer-Henrik, ZahlJan, Mæhlen. (2012) Why mammography screening has not lived up to expectations from the randomised trials. Cancer Causes & Control 23, 15-21
CrossRef108
Kyoo-Hoon, HanSamsup, Jo. (2012) Does Culture Matter?: A Cross-National Investigation of Women's Responses to Cancer Prevention Campaigns. Health Care for Women International 33, 75-94
CrossRef109
Nancy, Davidson. Breast Cancer and Benign Breast Disorders. 2012:, 1309-1317.
CrossRef110
Philippe, AutierMathieu, Boniol. (2012) Breast cancer screening: evidence of benefit depends on the method used. BMC Medicine 10, 163
CrossRef111
Bjorg, HafslundBirgitte, EspehaugMonica W., Nortvedt. (2012) Effects of False-Positive Results in a Breast Screening Program on Anxiety, Depression and Health-Related Quality of Life. Cancer Nursing 35, E26-E34
CrossRef112
Joost, NederendLucien EM, DuijmAdri C, VoogdJohanna H, GroenewoudFrits H, JansenMarieke WJ, Louwman. (2012) Trends in incidence and detection of advanced breast cancer at biennial screening mammography in The Netherlands: a population based study. Breast Cancer Research 14, R10
CrossRef113
R., RomanM., SalaD., SalasN., AscunceR., ZubizarretaX., Castells. (2012) Effect of protocol-related variables and women's characteristics on the cumulative false-positive risk in breast cancer screening. Annals of Oncology 23, 104-111
CrossRef114
Karsten, Jørgensen. (2012) Is the tide turning against breast screening?. Breast Cancer Research 14, 107
CrossRef115
Erlend, Hem. (2012) Brystkreft er overdiagnostisert. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 132, 808-808
CrossRef116
Donella, PulitiGuido, MiccinesiMarco, ZappaGianfranco, ManneschiEmanuele, CrocettiEugenio, Paci. (2012) Balancing harms and benefits of service mammography screening programs: a cohort study.. Breast Cancer Research 14, R9
CrossRef117
D.B., Kopans. (2012) Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 23, 40-42
CrossRef118
M., Edward Stefanek. (2011) Uninformed Compliance or Informed Choice? A Needed Shift in Our Approach to Cancer Screening. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103, 1821-1826
CrossRef119
Alessandro, CesareDe, GiuseppeGervasi, StefanoCrescentini, GiacomoFiori, EnricoBonomi, MarcoAlessandro, CrocettiAntonio V., Sterpetti. (2011) Single-Photon-Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT) with Technetium-99m Sestamibi in the Diagnosis of Small Breast Cancer and Axillary Lymph Node Involvement. World Journal of Surgery 35, 2668-2672
CrossRef120
Cornelia J., Baines. (2011) Rational and Irrational Issues in Breast Cancer Screening. Cancers 3, 252-266
CrossRef121
Michael, StamatakosCharikleia, StefanakiKonstantinos, XiromeritisNiki, PavlerouKonstantinos, Kontzoglou. (2011) Breast cancer in reproductive age. The new plaque or just myth?. Surgical Oncology 20, e169-e174
CrossRef122
Fotios, AnagnostopoulosChristine, DimitrakakiDeborah, FitzsimmonsGregory, PotamianosDimitris, NiakasYannis, Tountas. (2011) Health Beliefs and Illness Perceptions as Related to Mammography Uptake in Randomly Selected Women in Greece. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
CrossRef123
Rosa, Puigpinós-RieraGemma, SerralMariona, Pons-ViguésLaia, PalènciaMaica, Rodríguez-SanzCarme, Borrell. (2011) Evolution of Inequalities in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Barcelona: Population Surveys 1992, 2001, and 2006. Journal of Women's Health 20, 1721-1727
CrossRef124
Suzanne C., O’NeillIsaac M., LipkusJennifer M., GierischBarbara K., RimerJ. Michael, Bowling. (2011) It’s the Amount of Thought that Counts: When Ambivalence Contributes to Mammography Screening Delay. Women's Health Issues
CrossRef125
Xavier, Castells. (2011) Recensión bibliográfica. Gaceta Sanitaria 25, 552
CrossRef126
Marit, SolbjørSiri, ForsmoJohn-Arne, SkolbekkenAnn Rudinow, Sætnan. (2011) Experiences of Recall After Mammography Screening—A Qualitative Study. Health Care for Women International 32, 1009-1027
CrossRef127
Julián, IturbeAriel, ZwengerJosé Pablo, LeonePalmira Perez, VerderaCarlos, VallejoAlberto, RomeroJuán, PerezMario, MachiavelliBernardo, Leone. (2011) Treatment of Early Breast Cancer, a Long-term Follow-up Study: The GOCS Experience. The Breast Journal 17:10.1111/tbj.2011.17.issue-6, 630-637
CrossRef128
André LM, Verbeek. (2011) Mammographic screening: keeping women alive. Women's Health 7, 631-633
CrossRef129
Birger, Hjørland. (2011) Evaluation of an information source illustrated by a case study: Effect of screening for breast cancer. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62:10.1002/asi.v62.10, 1892-1898
CrossRef130
Iris, PasternackUlla, Saalasti-KoskinenMarjukka, Mäkelä. (2011) Decision aid for women considering breast cancer screening. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27, 357-362
CrossRef131
Elsebeth, LyngeTonje, BraatenSisse H., NjorAnne Helene, OlsenMerethe, KumleMarit, WaasethEiliv, Lund. (2011) Mammography activity in Norway 1983 to 2008. Acta Oncologica 50, 1062-1067
CrossRef132
Laia, DomingoAnabel, RomeroFrancesc, BelvisMar, SánchezJoana, FerrerDolores, SalasJosefa, IbáñezAlfonso, VegaFrancesc, FerrerM. Soledad, LasoFrancesc, MaciàXavier, CastellsMaria, Sala. (2011) Differences in radiological patterns, tumour characteristics and diagnostic precision between digital mammography and screen-film mammography in four breast cancer screening programmes in Spain. European Radiology 21, 2020-2028
CrossRef133
Ismail, Jatoi. (2011) The impact of advances in treatment on the efficacy of mammography screening. Preventive Medicine 53, 103-104
CrossRef134
Karsten Juhl, JørgensenJohn D., KeenPeter C., Gøtzsche. (2011) Is Mammographic Screening Justifiable Considering Its Substantial Overdiagnosis Rate and Minor Effect on Mortality?. Radiology 260, 621-627
CrossRef135
Andrew, ColdmanNorm, Phillips. (2011) Population studies of the effectiveness of mammographic screening. Preventive Medicine 53, 115-117
CrossRef136
Philippe, Autier. (2011) Breast cancer screening. European Journal of Cancer 47, S133-S146
CrossRef137
Paul, GlasziouNehmat, Houssami. (2011) The evidence base for breast cancer screening. Preventive Medicine 53, 100-102
CrossRef138
K J, Jørgensen. (2011) Flawed methods explain the effect of mammography screening in Nijmegen. British Journal of Cancer 105, 592-593
CrossRef139
A L M, VerbeekM J M, BroedersG, van SchoorS M, MossJ D M, OttenR, DondersE, PaapG J, den HeetenR, Holland. (2011) Reply: Flawed methods explain the effect of mammography screening in Nijmegen. British Journal of Cancer 105, 594-595
CrossRef140
Lucy A., PeipinsShannon, GrahamRandall, YoungBrian, LewisStephanie, FosterBarry, FlanaganAndrew, Dent. (2011) Time and Distance Barriers to Mammography Facilities in the Atlanta Metropolitan Area. Journal of Community Health 36, 675-683
CrossRef141
M., Bretthauer. (2011) Colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Internal Medicine 270, 87-98
CrossRef142
Russell, HarrisJohn, YeattsLinda, Kinsinger. (2011) Breast cancer screening for women ages 50 to 69 years a systematic review of observational evidence. Preventive Medicine
CrossRef143
G., LyratzopoulosJ. M., BarbiereB., RachetM., BaumM. R., ThompsonM. P., Coleman. (2011) Changes over time in socioeconomic inequalities in breast and rectal cancer survival in England and Wales during a 32-year period (1973-2004): the potential role of health care. Annals of Oncology 22, 1661-1666
CrossRef144
J. A., Hanley. (2011) Measuring Mortality Reductions in Cancer Screening Trials. Epidemiologic Reviews 33, 36-45
CrossRef145
S. W., Fletcher. (2011) Breast Cancer Screening: A 35-Year Perspective. Epidemiologic Reviews 33, 165-175
CrossRef146
M., Baum. (2011) Effect of abnormal screening mammogram on quality of life (Br J Surg DOI: 10.1002/bjs.7371). British Journal of Surgery 98:10.1002/bjs.v98.4, 542-543
CrossRef147
(2011) Climacteric Commentaries. Climacteric 14, 295-300
CrossRef148
G, van SchoorS M, MossJ D M, OttenR, DondersE, PaapG J, den HeetenR, HollandM J M, BroedersA L M, Verbeek. (2011) Increasingly strong reduction in breast cancer mortality due to screening. British Journal of Cancer 104, 910-914
CrossRef149
Howard, Wainer. (2011) How should we screen for breast cancer?. Significance 8, 28-30
CrossRef150
Andreu, Segura. (2011) Aspectos éticos sobre el límite de edad de los cribados de cáncer. FMC - Formación Médica Continuada en Atención Primaria 18, 125-130
CrossRef151
Joe B, Harford. (2011) Breast-cancer early detection in low-income and middle-income countries: do what you can versus one size fits all. The Lancet Oncology 12, 306-312
CrossRef152
Regina J., HooleyLiva, AndrejevaLeslie M., Scoutt. (2011) Breast Cancer Screening and Problem Solving Using Mammography, Ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Ultrasound Quarterly 27, 23-47
CrossRef153
Philip, BoyceDusan, Hadzi-Pavlovic. (2011) Risks risky and not so risky. Acta Neuropsychiatrica 23:10.1111/acn.2011.23.issue-1, 43-45
CrossRef154
Anders S., Bjartell. (2011) Dogs Sniffing Urine: A Future Diagnostic Tool or a Way to Identify New Prostate Cancer Markers?. European Urology 59, 202-203
CrossRef155
(2011) More on Screening Mammography. New England Journal of Medicine 364:3, 281-286
Free Full Text156
Bernard, JunodPer-Henrik, ZahlRobert M, KaplanJørn, OlsenSander, Greenland. (2011) An investigation of the apparent breast cancer epidemic in France: screening and incidence trends in birth cohorts. BMC Cancer 11, 401
CrossRef157
S.A., Feig. (2011) Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway. Yearbook of Oncology 2011, 47-50
CrossRef158
Obi L, GriffithJoe W, Gray. (2011) 'Omic approaches to preventing or managing metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research 13, 230
CrossRef159
Jan, HysingErik, Wist. (2011) Kardiotoksiske effekter av trastuzumab. Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening 131, 2239-2241
CrossRef160
Philippe, AutierMathieu, Boniol. (2011) Caution needed for country-specific cancer survival. The Lancet 377, 99-101
CrossRef161
S.A., Feig. (2011) Effect of Screening Mammography on Breast-Cancer Mortality in Norway. Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 22, 136-137
CrossRef162
Hazel, Thornton. (2011) Shared decision-making: Personal, professional and political. International Journal of Surgery 9, 195-197
CrossRef163
Welch , H. Gilbert . (2010) Screening Mammography — A Long Run for a Short Slide?. New England Journal of Medicine 363:13, 1276-1278
Full Text164
Sebastian, KoboldTim, LuetkensYanran, CaoCarsten, BokemeyerDjordje, Atanackovic. (2010) Prognostic and Diagnostic Value of Spontaneous Tumor-Related Antibodies. Clinical and Developmental Immunology 2010, 1-8
CrossRef
- Letters
