• 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • br Parise CA Bauer KR Brown MM


    [17] Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, et al. Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999e2004. Breast J 2009;15:593e602.
    [19] Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al. Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3628e36.
    [21] Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in 1062368-24-4 practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:493e502.
    [22] Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:1e10.
    [23] Vinnicombe S, Pinto Pereira SM, McCormack VA, et al. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: comparison within the UK breast screening program and systematic review of published data. Radiology 2009;251:347e58.
    [24] Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225:165e75.
    [25] Cong XJ, Shen Y, Miller AB. Estimation of age-specific sensitivity and sojourn time in breast cancer screening studies. Stat Med 2005;24:3123e38.
    [26] Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855e63.
    [27] Souza FH, Wendland EM, Rosa MI, et al. Is full-field digital mammography more accurate than screen-film mammography in overall population screening? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast 2013;22:217e24.
    [29] National Cancer Institute. Sensitivity and Specificity by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2004e2008. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute. http://breastscreening.canc [Accessed April 4, 2016].
    [30] Sprague BL, Arao RF, Miglioretti DL, et al. National performance benchmarks for modern diagnostic digital mammography: update from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Radiology 2017;283:59e69.
    [31] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Assessing and Improving the Interpretation of Breast Image: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
    [32] Parmigiani G. Modeling in Medical Decision Making. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.; 2002.
    [33] Perloff M, Norton L, Korzun AH, et al. Postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy of stage II breast carcinoma with or without crossover to a non-cross-resistant regimen: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B study. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:1589e98.
    [35] Wood WC, Weiss RB, Tormey DC, et al. A randomized trial of CMF versus CMFVP as adjuvant chemotherapy in women with node-positive stage II breast cancer: a CALGB study. World J Surg 1985;9:714e8.
    [36] Mariotto AB, Feuer EJ, Harlan LC, et al. Dissemination of adjuvant multiagent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States using estrogen receptor information: 1975e1999. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2006:7e15.
    [37] Dahabreh IJ, Linardou H, Siannis F, et al. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncologist 2008;13:620e30.
    [38] Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
    [39] Garrison Jr LP, Mansley EC. Abbott TA IIIrd, et al. Good research practices for measuring drug costs in cost-effectiveness analyses: a societal perspective: the ISPOR Drug Cost Task Force Reportdpart II. Value Health 2010;13:8e13.
    [40] Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, et al. Modeling good research practicesdoverview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-1. Med Decis Making 2012;32:667e77.
    [41] Sanders GD, Neumann PJ, Basu A, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: Second Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. JAMA 2016;316:1093e103.
    [42] Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician Fee Schedule. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2017.
    [43] Plevritis SK, Kurian AW, Sigal BM, et al. Cost-effectiveness of screening BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with breast magnetic resonance imaging. JAMA 2006;295:2374e84.
    [44] American College of Surgeons. NCDB Benchmark Reports. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2016.