FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2149136758> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2149136758 endingPage "640" @default.
• W2149136758 startingPage "633" @default.
• W2149136758 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 214, No. 3 PreviousNext OpinionAge-related Accuracy of Screening Mammography: How Should It Be Measured?Stephen A. FeigStephen A. FeigAuthor Affiliations1From the Department of Radiology, The Mount Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY. Received February 15, 1999; revision requested March 25; revision received May 3; accepted June 14. Address reprint requests to the author, 200 Locust St, Apt 21A, Philadelphia, PA 19106.Stephen A. FeigPublished Online:Mar 1 2000https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.3.r00mr45633MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In References 1 Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:29-33. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar2 Leitch AM, Dodd GD, Costanza M, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of breast cancer: update 1997. CA Cancer J Clin 1997; 47:150-153. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar3 Stapleton S. House: annual mammograms at 40. American Medical News 1999; 42(no. 27):27, 29. Google Scholar4 Eastman P. NCI adopts new mammography screening guidelines for women. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 89:538-540. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH, III, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography for women aged 40-49: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:87-92. Google Scholar6 Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, III, Smith RA. Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40-49 years: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer 1995; 75:1619-1626[Erratum: Cancer 1995; 75:2788.]. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Falun Meeting Organizing Committee and Collaborators. Breast-cancer screening with mammography in women aged 40–49 years: Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare—report of the organizing committee and collaborators, Falun Meeting, Falun, Sweden (21 and 22 March 1996). Int J Cancer 1996; 68:693-699. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar8 Andersson I, Janzon L. Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: updated results from Malmö Mammographic Screening Program. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:63-67. Google Scholar9 Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first result on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39-49 years at randomization. Cancer 1997; 80:2091-2099. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar10 Chu KC, Smart CR, Tarone RE. Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the Health Insurance Plan clinical trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1988; 80:1125-1132. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar11 Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L. Periodic screening for breast cancer: the Health Insurance Plan Project and its sequelae, 1963-1986 Baltimore, Md: John Hopkins University Press, 1988. Google Scholar12 Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Chen HH, et al. Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish Two-County Trial. Cancer 1995; 75:2507-2517. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar13 Feig SA. Methods to identify benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40–49 years. Radiology 1996; 201:309-316. Link, Google Scholar14 Smart CR, Hartmann WH, Beahrs OH, Garfinkel L. Insights into breast cancer screening of younger women: evidence from the 14-year follow-up of the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. Cancer 1993; 72:1449-1456. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar15 Sickles EA, Kopans DB. Deficiencies in the analysis of breast cancer screening data. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1621-1624. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar16 Fletcher SW, Black W, Harris R, Rimer BK, Shapiro S. Report of the International Workshop on Screening for Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85:1644-1656. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar17 Kopans DB, Feig SA. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a critical review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 161:755-760. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar18 Black WC, Nease RF, Jr, Tosteson ANA. Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:720-726. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar19 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Eaton A, Ernster V. Positive predictive value of screening mammography by age and family history of breast cancer. JAMA 1993; 270:2444-2450. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar20 Esserman L, Kerlikowske K. Should we recommend screening mammography for women aged 40-49?. Oncology 1996; 10:357-365. Medline, Google Scholar21 Davis DL, Love SM. Mammographic screening (editorial). JAMA 1994; 271:152-153. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar22 Sox HC. Screening mammography in women younger than 50 years of age (editorial). Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:550-552. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar23 Kerlikowske K, Barclay J. Outcomes of modern screening mammography. Monogr Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 22:105-111. Google Scholar24 Feig SA. Determination of mammographic screening intervals with surrogate measures for women aged 40-49 years. Radiology 1994; 193:351-358. Link, Google Scholar25 Feig SA. Estimation of currently attainable benefit from mammographic screening of women aged 40 years. Cancer 1995; 75:2412-2419. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar26 Feig SA. Strategies for improving the sensitivity of screening mammography for women aged 40–49 years. JAMA 1996; 276:73-74. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar27 Feig SA. Increased benefit from shorter screening mammography intervals for women ages 40–49 years. Cancer 1997; 80:2035-2039. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar28 Feig SA. Mammography screening: published guidelines and actual practice. Recent Results Cancer Res 1987; 105:78-84. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar29 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49, January 21-23, 1997.J Natl Cancer Inst1997; 89:1015-1026. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar30 Wells J. Mammography and the politics of randomized controlled trials. Br Med J 1998; 317:1224-1229. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar31 Berry DA. Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical reappraisal. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998; 90:1431-1439. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar32 De Koning HJ, Boer R, Warmerdam PG, Beemsterboer PM, van der Maas PJ. Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from Swedish breast cancer-screening trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995; 87:1217-1223. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar33 Tabar L, Duffy SW, Chen HH. Re: Quantitative interpretation of age-specific mortality reductions from the Swedish Breast Cancer-Screening Trials (letter). J Natl Cancer Inst 1996; 88:52-55. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar34 Harris R, Leininger L. Clinical strategies for breast cancer screening: weighing and using the evidence. Ann Intern Med 1995; 122:539-547. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar35 Harris R. Re: Efficacy of screening mammography for women in their forties (letter). J Natl Cancer Inst 1994; 86:1722-1724. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar36 Gail M, Rimer B. Risk-based recommendations for mammographic screening for women in their forties. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:3105-3114. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar37 Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K. Cost-effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40 to 49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127:955-965. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar38 American College of Radiology Breast Cancer Task Force. Risk of risk-based mammography screening, ages 40 to 49 (letter). J Clin Oncol 1999; 17:735-737. Medline, Google Scholar39 Kopans DB, Moore RH, McCarthy KA, et al. Positive predictive value of breast biopsy performed as a result of mammography: there is no abrupt change at age 50 years. Radiology 1996; 200:357-360. Link, Google Scholar40 Kopans DB, Moore RB, McCarthy KA, et al. Biasing the interpretation of mammography screening data by age grouping: nothing changes abruptly at age 50. Breast J 1998; 4:139-145. Crossref, Google Scholar41 Kopans DB. The use of mammography for screening (letter). JAMA 1994; 271:982. Medline, Google Scholar42 Kerlikowske K. The use of mammography for screening—reply (letter). JAMA 1994; 271:982-983. Medline, Google Scholar43 Sickles EA. Auditing your practice. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1995; 81-91. Google Scholar44 Antman K, Shea S. Screening mammography under age 50. JAMA 1999; 281:1470-1472. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar45 Frankel SD, Sickles EA, Curpen BN, Sollito RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164:1107-1109. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar46 Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, Polk S, Arena PJ, Fletcher SW. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:1089-1096. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar47 Feig SA. A perspective on false positive screening mammograms. ACR Bull 1998; 54:8, 13. Google Scholar48 American College of Radiology BI-RADS Committee. Breast imaging reporting and data system 3rd ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1998. Google Scholar49 Stomper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:1261-1265. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar50 Jackson VP, Hendrick RE, Feig SA, Kopans DB. Imaging of the radiographically dense breast. Radiology 1993; 188:297-301. Link, Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished in print: Mar 2000 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByAssessment of New American Cancer Society Guidelines for Screening MammographyStephen A.Feig2016 | Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 4Mammography performance in Oman: Review of factors influencing cancer yield and positive predictive valueSawsanTaif, FatmaTufail, Ahmed SameerAlnuaimi2016 | Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 12, No. 2Improving Screening Mammography Outcomes Through Comparison With Multiple Prior MammogramsJessica H.Hayward, Kimberly M.Ray, Dorota J.Wisner, JohnKornak, WeiwenLin, Bonnie N.Joe, Edward A.Sickles2016 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 207, No. 4Role of PET-CT versus MRI in carcinoma breast: Which one is indicated for detecting the primary?AnirudhVNair, CJSandya, SMoorthy, PVRamachandran2015 | Indian Journal of Cancer, Vol. 52, No. 4Comprehensive GynecologyVern L.Katz, DeborahDotters2013Breast ImagingStephen A.Feig, Stephen W.Duffy2011The state of affairs of the public sector mammography service in the Free State Pprovince of South AfricaWSHarmse, CSDe Vries2011 | South African Family Practice, Vol. 53, No. 6Estimated Risk of Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer From Mammographic Screening for Young BRCA Mutation CarriersS.A.Feig2010 | Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1How does age affect baseline screening mammography performance measures? A decision modelJohn DKeen, James EKeen2008 | BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 8, No. 1'More positive about mammography' – reactions of women to a false positive recall: a qualitative study of women at risk of familial breast cancerAClements, STyndel, BHenderson, KBrain, EWatson, JAustoker2008 | Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 10, No. S2Comparison of Computer-Aided Detection to Double Reading of Screening Mammograms: Review of 231,221 MammogramsMatthewGromet2008 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 190, No. 4Comprehensive GynecologyFidel A.Valea, Vern L.Katz2007StrahlentherapieU.Freund, W.Harms2006The manufacturer's perspectiveJRoehrig2005 | The British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 78, No. suppl_1Impact of Computer-Aided Detection in a Regional Screening Mammography ProgramTommy E.Cupples, Joan E.Cunningham, James C.Reynolds2005 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 185, No. 4Radiology and the LawRonald L.Eisenberg2004Adverse effects of screening mammographyStephen A.Feig2004 | Radiologic Clinics of North America, Vol. 42, No. 5Re: Changes in Breast Cancer Detection and Mammography Recall Rates After the Introduction of a Computer-Aided Detection SystemS. A.Feig, E. A.Sickles, W. P.Evans, M. N.Linver2004 | JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 96, No. 16Screening for “Cancer”: When is it Valid?—Lessons from the Mammography Experience1Daniel B. Kopans, , Barbara Monsees, , and Stephen A. Feig, 1 November 2003 | Radiology, Vol. 229, No. 2Screening strategy for breast cancerStephen A.Feig2003 | Seminars in Breast Disease, Vol. 6, No. 4Current status of screening mammographyStephen AFeig2002 | Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America, Vol. 29, No. 1Age-specific accuracy of initial versus subsequent mammography screening: results from the Ghent breast cancer-screening programmePVan Landeghem, LBleyen, GDe Backer2002 | European Journal of Cancer Prevention, Vol. 11, No. 2Epidemiology of Breast Cancer in Older WomenAnthony J.Alberg, SoniaSingh2001 | Drugs & Aging, Vol. 18, No. 10Dot Size, Lead Time, Fallibility, and Impact on SurvivalLeonardBerlin2001 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 176, No. 5Nach Redaktionsschluß eingelangt2000 | Acta Chirurgica Austriaca, Vol. 32, No. S4Integration of breast imaging into cancer managementLaura J.Esserman, DulcyWolverton, NolaHylton2000 | Current Oncology Reports, Vol. 2, No. 6Recommended Articles RSNA Education Exhibits RSNA Case Collection Vol. 214, No. 3 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W2149136758 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2149136758 creator A5059528446 @default.
• W2149136758 date "2000-03-01" @default.
• W2149136758 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2149136758 title "Age-related Accuracy of Screening Mammography: How Should It Be Measured?" @default.
• W2149136758 cites W139288608 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1570977007 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1858193000 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W194413020 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1967323005 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1978994822 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1985869352 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1988371304 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W1994389804 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2010073348 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2015969967 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2017153864 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2020840042 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2027410132 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2030622127 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2036843179 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2036887641 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2041333229 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2041602034 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2047841902 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2066950051 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2074816712 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2076287638 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2081140706 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2086528384 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2087980435 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2094287203 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2099648127 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2100813121 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2105120592 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2109684361 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2125565254 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2134498669 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2135002375 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2146749492 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2148138877 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2148660398 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2165940035 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2189147828 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2261551313 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2317534977 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2325332048 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W2747085905 @default.
• W2149136758 cites W6522124 @default.
• W2149136758 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.214.3.r00mr45633" @default.
• W2149136758 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10715022" @default.
• W2149136758 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W2149136758 type Work @default.
• W2149136758 sameAs 2149136758 @default.
• W2149136758 citedByCount "31" @default.
• W2149136758 countsByYear W21491367582014 @default.
• W2149136758 countsByYear W21491367582015 @default.
• W2149136758 countsByYear W21491367582016 @default.
• W2149136758 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2149136758 hasAuthorship W2149136758A5059528446 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C2780472235 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C2910710802 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C530470458 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C121608353 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C126322002 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C19527891 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C2780472235 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C2910710802 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C530470458 @default.
• W2149136758 hasConceptScore W2149136758C71924100 @default.
• W2149136758 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2149136758 hasLocation W21491367581 @default.
• W2149136758 hasLocation W21491367582 @default.
• W2149136758 hasOpenAccess W2149136758 @default.
• W2149136758 hasPrimaryLocation W21491367581 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W1995483024 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2036250118 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2047919136 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2070451876 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2105443593 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2144690133 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2404903462 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2510627775 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W2890945786 @default.
• W2149136758 hasRelatedWork W3139993472 @default.
• W2149136758 hasVolume "214" @default.
• W2149136758 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2149136758 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2149136758 magId "2149136758" @default.
• W2149136758 workType "article" @default.