Reply: An inverse association between tumour size and overdiagnosis may explain the results by Bucchi et al
暂无分享,去创建一个
M. Federico | E. Buiatti | S. Ferretti | A. Barchielli | L. Bucchi | A. Frigerio | V. De Lisi | E. Paci | A. Ravaioli | M. Vettorazzi | S. Patriarca
[1] Lymph node status in screen-detected cancers , 2005, British Journal of Cancer.
[2] M. Federico,et al. Screen-detected vs clinical breast cancer: the advantage in the relative risk of lymph node metastases decreases with increasing tumour size , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.
[3] V. Kataja,et al. Risk for distant recurrence of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods. , 2004, JAMA.
[4] Jan Mæhlen,et al. Incidence of breast cancer in Norway and Sweden during introduction of nationwide screening: prospective cohort study , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.
[5] J. Coebergh,et al. Breast Cancers Found by Screening: Earlier Detection, Lower Malignant Potential or Both? , 2002, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
[6] I. Vejborg,et al. Breast cancer incidence after the start of mammography screening in Denmark , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.
[7] Peter C Gøtzsche,et al. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography , 2001, The Lancet.
[8] N. Wald,et al. European Society of Mastology Consensus Conference on breast cancer screening: report of the evaluation committee. , 1994, The British journal of radiology.
[9] A. Huggins,et al. Comparative pathology of breast cancer in a randomised trial of screening. , 1991, British Journal of Cancer.
[10] L. Tabár,et al. Detection method, tumour size and node metastases in breast cancers diagnosed during a trial of breast cancer screening. , 1987, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.