Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Breast screening / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Breast screening.

Journal articles on the topic 'Breast screening'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 21 February 2023

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Breast screening.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Yamauchi, Hideko. "Breast Cancer Screening System in USA." Nihon Nyugan Kenshin Gakkaishi (Journal of Japan Association of Breast Cancer Screening) 21, no. 2 (2012): 115–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3804/jjabcs.21.115.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Calinescu, Gina, Corina Grigoriu, Athir Eddan, Nicolae Bacalbasa, Irina Balescu, Bianca-Margareta Mihai, Roxana Elena Bohiltea, and Claudia Stoica. "Breast density and breast cancer." Romanian Journal of Medical Practice 16, S7 (December 30, 2021): 29–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.37897/rjmp.2021.s7.9.

Full text

Abstract:

Breast density is increasingly recognized as an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer. It has been shown to be associated with a four-to sixfold increase a woman's risk of malignant breast disease. Increased breast density, as identified on mammography, is known to decrease the diagnostic sensitivity of the examination, which is of great concern to women at increased risk for breast cancer. Dense tissue has generally been associated with younger age and premenopausal status, with the assumption that breast density gradually decreases after menopause. However, the actual proportion of older women with dense breasts is unknown. Unfortunately, mammography is less accurate on dense breast tissue compared to fattier breast tissue. Multiple studies suggest a solution to this by demonstrating the ability of supplemental screening ultrasound to detect additional malignant lesions in women with dense breast tissue but with negative mammography. Improved screening methods for women with dense breasts are needed due to their increased risk of breast cancer and of failed early diagnosis by screening mammography.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Gordon, Paula B. "The Impact of Dense Breasts on the Stage of Breast Cancer at Diagnosis: A Review and Options for Supplemental Screening." Current Oncology 29, no. 5 (May 17, 2022): 3595–636. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29050291.

Full text

Abstract:

The purpose of breast cancer screening is to find cancers early to reduce mortality and to allow successful treatment with less aggressive therapy. Mammography is the gold standard for breast cancer screening. Its efficacy in reducing mortality from breast cancer was proven in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted from the early 1960s to the mid 1990s. Panels that recommend breast cancer screening guidelines have traditionally relied on the old RCTs, which did not include considerations of breast density, race/ethnicity, current hormone therapy, and other risk factors. Women do not all benefit equally from mammography. Mortality reduction is significantly lower in women with dense breasts because normal dense tissue can mask cancers on mammograms. Moreover, women with dense breasts are known to be at increased risk. To provide equity, breast cancer screening guidelines should be created with the goal of maximizing mortality reduction and allowing less aggressive therapy, which may include decreasing the interval between screening mammograms and recommending consideration of supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. This review will address the issue of dense breasts and the impact on the stage of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis, and discuss options for supplemental screening.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Arima, Yuriko. "Breast Cancer Screening Programme in the UK." Nihon Nyugan Kenshin Gakkaishi (Journal of Japan Association of Breast Cancer Screening) 21, no. 2 (2012): 127–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3804/jjabcs.21.127.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Chou, Yi-Hong. "Evolution of Breast Cancer Screening in Taiwan." Nihon Nyugan Kenshin Gakkaishi (Journal of Japan Association of Breast Cancer Screening) 21, no. 2 (2012): 138–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.3804/jjabcs.21.138.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Russell, Ian S. "Breast screening." Medical Journal of Australia 142, no. 1 (January 1985): 6–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1985.tb113271.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Balaam, Ellen. "Breast screening." Medical Journal of Australia 142, no. 5 (March 1985): 332. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1985.tb113397.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Austoker, J. "Breast screening." BMJ 300, no. 6720 (February 3, 1990): 332–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.300.6720.332-c.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

O’Tuathail, Claire. "Breast screening." Nursing Older People 12, no. 2 (April 1, 2000): 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/nop.12.2.30.s28.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Logan, D. M., S. E. Aitken, and W. K. Evans. "Breast Screening." Journal SOGC 21, no. 8 (July 1999): 780–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0849-5831(16)30484-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Wright, CharlesJ. "Breast screening." Lancet 340, no. 8811 (July 1992): 122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(92)90452-9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Rodgers, A. "Breast screening." BMJ 299, no. 6714 (December 16, 1989): 1530. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.299.6714.1530.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Rosen, M., N. Rehnqvist, and M. Baum. "Breast screening." BMJ 318, no. 7186 (March 20, 1999): 809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7186.809a.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Zheng, Senshuang, Xiaorui Zhang, Marcel J. W. Greuter, Geertruida H. de Bock, and Wenli Lu. "Determinants of Population-Based Cancer Screening Performance at Primary Healthcare Institutions in China." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 6 (March 23, 2021): 3312. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18063312.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: For a decade, most population-based cancer screenings in China are performed by primary healthcare institutions. To assess the determinants of performance of primary healthcare institutions in population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in China. Methods: A total of 262 primary healthcare institutions in Tianjin participated in a survey on cancer screening. The survey consisted of questions on screening tests, the number of staff members and training, the introduction of the screening programs to residents, the invitation of residents, and the number of performed screenings per year. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the determinants of performance of an institution to fulfil the target number of screenings. Results: In 58% and 61% of the institutions between three and nine staff members were dedicated to breast and cervical cancer screening, respectively, whereas in 71% of the institutions ≥10 staff members were dedicated to colorectal cancer screening. On average 60% of institutions fulfilled the target number of breast and cervical cancer screenings, whereas 93% fulfilled the target number for colorectal cancer screening. The determinants of performance were rural districts for breast (OR = 5.16 (95%CI: 2.51–10.63)) and cervical (OR = 4.17 (95%CI: 2.14–8.11)) cancer screenings, and ≥3 staff members dedicated to cervical cancer screening (OR = 2.34 (95%CI: 1.09–5.01)). Conclusions: Primary healthcare institutions in China perform better in colorectal than in breast and cervical cancer screening, and institutions in rural districts perform better than institutions in urban districts. Increasing the number of staff members on breast and cervical cancer screening could improve the performance of population-based cancer screening.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Reungwetwattana, Thanyanan, Julian R. Molina, and Jeanette Y. Ziegenfuss. "Factors and trends in cancer screening in the United States from 2004 to 2010." Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, no. 15_suppl (May 20, 2012): 1565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.30.15_suppl.1565.

Full text

Abstract:

1565 Background: Understanding the prevalence of cancer screening in the US and the factors associated with its accessibility is important for public health promotion. Methods: The 2004 and 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Systems were used to ascertain cancer screening rates among populations indicated for each test by age, gender, and the American Cancer Society recommendation for cancer screenings [fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or endoscopy for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, digital rectal examination (DRE) or prostate specific antigen (PSA) for prostate cancer screening, clinical breast examination (CBE) or mammogram for breast cancer screening, and Papanicolaou (Pap) test for cervical cancer screening]. Results: Over this period, CRC and breast cancer screening rates significantly increased (15.9%, 13.9%) while prostate and cervical cancer screening rates significantly decreased (1.2%, 5.2%). Race/ethnicity might be an influence in CRC and cervical cancer screening accessibility. Prostate cancer screening accessibility might be influenced by education and income. The older-aged populations (70-79, >79) had high prevalence of CRC, prostate and breast cancer screenings even though there is insufficient evidence for the benefits and harms of screenings in the older-aged group. Conclusions: The disparities in age, race/ethnicity, health insurance, education, employment, and income for the accession to cancer screening of the US population have decreased since 2004. The trajectory of increasing rates of CRC and breast cancer screenings should be maintained. To reverse the trend, the causes of the decreased rate of cervical cancer screening and the high rates of screenings in older-aged populations should, however, be further explored. [Table: see text]

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Chau, Stephanie Lynn, Amy Alabaster, Karin Luikart, Leslie Manace Brenman, and Laurel A. Habel. "The Effect of California’s Breast Density Notification Legislation on Breast Cancer Screening." Journal of Primary Care & Community Health 8, no. 2 (October 31, 2016): 55–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2150131916674889.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose: Half of US states mandate women be notified if they have dense breasts on their mammogram, yet guidelines and data on supplemental screening modalities are limited. Breast density (BD) refers to the extent that breast tissue appears radiographically dense on mammograms. High BD reduces the sensitivity of screening mammography and increases breast cancer risk. The aim of this study was to determine the potential impact of California’s 2013 BD notification legislation on breast cancer screening patterns. Methods: We conducted a cohort study of women aged 40 to 74 years who were members of a large Northern California integrated health plan (approximately 3.9 million members) in 2011-2015. We calculated pre- and post-legislation rates of screening mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We also examined whether women with dense breasts (defined as BI-RADS density c or d) had higher MRI rates than women with nondense breasts (defined as BI-RADS density a or b). Results: After adjustment for race/ethnicity, age, body mass index, medical facility, neighborhood median income, and cancer history, there was a relative 6.6% decrease (relative risk [RR] 0.934, confidence interval [CI] 0.92-0.95) in the rate of screening mammography, largely driven by a decrease among women <50 years. While infrequent, there was a relative 16% increase (RR 1.16, CI 1.07-1.25) in the rate of screening MRI, with the greatest increase among the youngest women. In the postlegislation period, women with extremely dense breasts (BI-RADS d) had 2.77 times (CI 1.93-3.95) the odds of a MRI within 9 months of a screening mammogram compared with women with nondense breasts (BI-RADS b). Conclusions: In this setting, MRI rates increased in the postlegislation period. In addition, women with higher BD were more likely to have supplementary MRI. The decrease in mammography rates seen primarily among younger women may have been due to changes in national screening guidelines.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Destounis, Stamatia, Andrea Arieno, and Amanda Santacroce. "Screening Ultrasound for Women with Dense Breasts in the Age of Patient-centered Care." American Journal of Sonography 1 (September 20, 2018): 14. http://dx.doi.org/10.25259/ajs-30-2018.

Full text

Abstract:

As the field of medicine moves toward practicing patient-centered care, radiologists in breast imaging must continue to look for ways to increase the value of their practice in the eyes of patients. Providing adjunct screening of women with dense breasts provides such an opportunity. The presence of dense breast tissue is not only an independent risk factor for breast cancer but also a risk factor for the delayed diagnosis of breast cancer as dense tissue reduces the efficacy of screening mammograms due to the tissue masking effect. As legislation for notifying women of their breast density becomes commonplace, both women and referring physicians need to understand the risks of dense breast tissue as well as the benefits of additional screening affords. Breast radiologists can become integral to their patients’ care team by offering education to both referring providers and patients on the topic of dense breasts and supplemental screening solutions, such as screening breast ultrasound, which has been shown to have benefit in overcoming mammography’s shortcomings in this demographic of women.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

P., Priyadarshini,, Sarathi, S., and Hemavathy, V. "Breast Cancer Screening." CARDIOMETRY, no. 24 (November 30, 2022): 1000–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.18137/cardiometry.2022.24.10001005.

Full text

Abstract:

Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer in women, impacting one out of every eight women at some point in their lives. Despite the fact that it is more frequent in older women, breast cancer seldom strikes women under the age of 45. Women under the age of 45 account for around 9% of all new cases of breast cancer in the United States. The most important methods for preventing breast cancer deaths are early detection and cutting-edge cancer treatment. Breast cancer that is detected early, when it is little and hasn’t spread, is easier to treat. The most accurate method for identifying breast cancer early is through frequent screening examinations. According to the American Cancer Society, screening is recommended for both women who are at medium risk of breast cancer and those who are at high risk. Breast cancer screening tests are used to detect the disease before symptoms such as a palpable lump appear. Screening tests and exams are used to identify illness in persons who do not exhibit symptoms. Clinical and self-breast examinations, mammography, genetic screening, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging have all been used as screening treatments.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Bukhari, Hassan, Asim Shaukat, and Nosheen Ahmad. "BREAST CANCER SCREENING;." Professional Medical Journal 24, no. 01 (January 18, 2017): 42–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.29309/tpmj/2017.24.01.400.

Full text

Abstract:

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of Magnetic resonance imaging andMammography for Breast-Cancer Screening in high risk Women with a Familial or GeneticPredisposition. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Department of Radiology AlliedHospital, Faisalabad. Duration: From January 2012 to December 2014, Sample size: 299.Methods: A total of 299 females at high risk of breast cancer were included in this study andthey underwent screening rounds of Mammogram and contrast enhanced dynamic breastMRI once a year with independent readings. Both the imaging modalities were interpreted byexperience radiologist and all the images were categorized using Breast Imaging Reportingand Data System. In each patient, histopathology results were considered the standard criteriafor the calculation of the sensitivity, specificity for both Mammogram and Breast MRI lesions.Results: Mean age of the patients was 46.69±11.86 years. Mammography revealed 11 (3.68%)true positive breast lesions, 22 (7.36%) false positive lesion, 247 (82.61%) true negative and19 (6.35%) false negative lesions yielding the sensitivity of 36.67% and diagnostic accuracy of86.3%. Dynamic breast MRI revealed 28 (9.36%) true positive breast lesions with 5 (1.67%) falsepositive, 264 (88.29%) true negative and 2 (0.67%) false negative lesions yielding sensitivity of93.3%,specificity of 98.14%,PPV=84.85%,NPV=99.25% and diagnostic accuracy of 97.66%.MRI breast was significantly more sensitive (93.3 vs. 36.67%) and accurate (97.66 vs. 86.3%)than mammography. Conclusion: MRI is more sensitive than mammography in detectingtumors in women with an inherited susceptibility to breast cancer.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Lynge, Elsebeth, Ilse Vejborg, Zorana Andersen, My von Euler-Chelpin, and George Napolitano. "Mammographic Density and Screening Sensitivity, Breast Cancer Incidence and Associated Risk Factors in Danish Breast Cancer Screening." Journal of Clinical Medicine 8, no. 11 (November 19, 2019): 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm8112021.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: Attention in the 2000s on the importance of mammographic density led us to study screening sensitivity, breast cancer incidence, and associations with risk factors by mammographic density in Danish breast cancer screening programs. Here, we summarise our approaches and findings. Methods: Dichotomized density codes: fatty, equal to BI-RADS density code 1 and part of 2, and other mixed/dense data from the 1990s—were available from two counties, and BI-RADS density codes from one region were available from 2012/13. Density data were linked with data on vital status, incident breast cancer, and potential risk factors. We calculated screening sensitivity by combining data on screen-detected and interval cancers. We used cohorts to study high density as a predictor of breast cancer risk; cross-sectional data to study the association between life style factors and density, adjusting for age and body mass index (BMI); and time trends to study the prevalence of high density across birth cohorts. Results: Sensitivity decreased with increasing density from 78% in women with BI-RADS 1 to 47% in those with BI-RADS 4. For women with mixed/dense compared with those with fatty breasts, the rate ratio of incident breast cancer was 2.45 (95% CI 2.14–2.81). The percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts decreased with age, but at a higher rate the later the women were born. Among users of postmenopausal hormone therapy, the percentage of women with mixed/dense breasts was higher than in non-users, but the patterns across birth cohorts were similar. The occurrence of mixed/dense breast at screening age decreased by a z-score unit of BMI at age 13—odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.53–0.58)—and so did breast cancer risk and hazard ratio (HR) 0.92 (95% CI 0.84–1.00), but it changed to HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93–1.11) when controlled for density. Age and BMI adjusted associations between life style factors and density were largely close to unity; physical activity OR 1.06 (95% CI 0.93–1.21); alcohol consumption OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81–1.27); air pollution OR 0.96 (95% 0.93–1.01) per 20 μg/m3; and traffic noise OR 0.94 (95% CI 0.86–1.03) per 10 dB. Weak negative associations were seen for diabetes OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.40–0.92) and cigarette smoking OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.75–0.99), and a positive association was found with hormone therapy OR 1.24 (95% 1.14–1.35). Conclusion: Our data indicate that breast tissue in middle-aged women is highly dependent on childhood body constitution while adult life-style plays a modest role, underlying the need for a long-term perspective in primary prevention of breast cancer.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Miller, Matthew M., Kathy Repich, James T. Patrie, Roger T. Anderson, and Jennifer A. Harvey. "Preferences and Attitudes Regarding Adjunct Breast Cancer Screening Among Patients with Dense Breasts." Journal of Breast Imaging 2, no. 2 (February 28, 2020): 119–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbi/wbz093.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Objective New breast screening modalities are being investigated to address the need for more sensitive breast cancer screening in women with dense breasts. We investigated the preferences and attitudes of these patients regarding adjunct screening modalities to help evaluate the acceptability of these exams. Methods In this institutional review board–approved prospective study, patients with dense breasts on their prior mammogram were invited to complete a survey. Patients were asked to estimate their personal breast cancer risk compared with peers, indicate their level of concern related to screening callbacks, radiation exposure, and intravenous (IV) contrast allergies, and identify which factors might deter them from getting adjunct screening exams. Results Five hundred eight patients with dense breasts presenting for screening mammography completed surveys. While most patients (304/508, 59.9%) felt it was likely or very likely that cancer could be missed on their mammogram, only 8.9% (45/508) had undergone adjunct screening exams in the past 3 years. The most commonly cited deterrents to adjunct screening were cost (340/508, 66.9%), pain (173/508, 34.1%), and concern that adjunct screening could lead to additional procedures (158/508, 31.1%). When asked to select among three hypothetical breast cancer screening modalities, patients strongly preferred the more sensitive examination, even if this involved greater cost (162/508, 31.9%) or IV-contrast administration (315/508, 62.0%). Conclusion Our data suggest that patients with dense breasts prefer adjunct screening exams that are both sensitive and inexpensive, although an increase in sensitivity could outweigh additional cost or even IV-line placement.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Daftary, Jalpa, Alka Agrawal, Prem Tripathi, and Abhinav Sahu. "Breast screening revisited." Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 3, no. 4 (2014): 340. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.148103.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Barton, Mary B. "Breast cancer screening." Postgraduate Medicine 118, no. 2 (August 2005): 27–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3810/pgm.2005.08.1692.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Zorbas, Helen M. "Breast cancer screening." Medical Journal of Australia 178, no. 12 (June 2003): 651–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05397.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Gerson, Edwin S., and Wendie A. Berg. "Screening breast sonography." American Journal of Roentgenology 180, no. 5 (May 2003): 1477–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.5.1801477a.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Warner, Elizabeth A. "BREAST CANCER SCREENING." Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 19, no. 3 (September 1992): 575–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0095-4543(21)00939-8.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Cooper, Nora. "Breast cancer screening." Nursing Standard 13, no. 31 (April 21, 1999): 49–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.7748/ns1999.04.13.31.49.c7471.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Freimanis, Rita I., and Margaret Yacobozzi. "Breast Cancer Screening." North Carolina Medical Journal 75, no. 2 (March 2014): 117–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.18043/ncm.75.2.117.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Tabár, László, and Peter B. Dean. "Breast cancer screening." Medical Journal of Australia 154, no. 7 (April 1991): 494. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121204.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Kearsley, John H., and Cherrell Hirst. "Breast cancer screening." Medical Journal of Australia 154, no. 7 (April 1991): 494. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121205.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Cohen, Jonathan, and Joseph Cohen. "Breast cancer screening." Medical Journal of Australia 154, no. 7 (April 1991): 494. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121206.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Freilich, Herbert. "Breast cancer screening." Medical Journal of Australia 154, no. 11 (June 1991): 781–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121347.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Tabár, László, and Peter B. Dean. "Breast cancer screening." Medical Journal of Australia 154, no. 12 (June 1991): 853–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1991.tb121395.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Warner, Ellen. "Breast-Cancer Screening." New England Journal of Medicine 365, no. 11 (September 15, 2011): 1025–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmcp1101540.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Ellman, Ruth. "Breast Cancer Screening." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 80, no. 11 (November 1987): 665–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014107688708001101.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Donald Acheson, E. "Breast Cancer Screening." Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 82, no. 8 (August 1989): 455–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014107688908200804.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

LETTON, A. HAMBLIN, and EDWARD M. MASON. "Routine Breast Screening." Annals of Surgery 203, no. 5 (May 1986): 470–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198605000-00004.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Owens, R. Glynn, and Jennifer J. Ashcroft. "Breast Cancer Screening." Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 4, no. 4 (February 26, 1987): 15–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/j077v04n04_02.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

GEMIGNANI, MARY L. "Breast Cancer Screening." Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 54, no. 1 (March 2011): 125–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/grf.0b013e318208020d.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

FELDMAN, ELIZABETH D., BRIDGET A. OPPONG, and SHAWNA C. WILLEY. "Breast Cancer Screening." Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 55, no. 3 (September 2012): 662–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/grf.0b013e31825ca884.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

BARRACLOUGH, B. M., R. H. PICKER, and B. H. BARRACLOUGH. "Toward Breast Screening." Australasian Radiology 29, no. 2 (May 1985): 181–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1985.tb01688.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

EDDY, D. M. "Breast Cancer Screening." JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81, no. 3 (February 1, 1989): 234–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/81.3.234.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Daly, Vanessa. "Breast screening unit." British Journal of Healthcare Assistants 2, no. 11 (November 2008): 546. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjha.2008.2.11.31535.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Palmieri, C., S. Fishpool, and H. O. Dickinson. "Breast cancer screening." BMJ 321, no. 7260 (September 2, 2000): 567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7260.567/b.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Witcombe, J. B. "Breast cancer screening." Clinical Radiology 44, no. 4 (October 1991): 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(05)80203-x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Kirkpatrick, A. E. "Breast cancer screening." Clinical Radiology 44, no. 4 (October 1991): 287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(05)80204-1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Wilbanks, Sandy. "Breast Cancer Screening." Journal for Nurse Practitioners 13, no. 4 (April 2017): e217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2017.03.001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Wilbanks, Sandy. "Breast Cancer Screening." Journal for Nurse Practitioners 13, no. 4 (April 2017): e219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2017.03.002.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Thorat, Mangesh A., and Hazel Thornton. "MRI breast screening." Lancet 371, no. 9622 (April 2008): 1415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60620-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Dewey, Marc, and Peter Martus. "MRI breast screening." Lancet 371, no. 9622 (April 2008): 1415–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60621-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!