SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2001. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2004.
  • 2
    Chu KC, Tarone RE, Kessler LG, et al. Recent trends in U.S. breast cancer incidence, survival, and mortality rates. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996; 88: 15711579.
  • 3
    National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute consensus development meeting on breast cancer screening: issues and recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1978; 60: 15191521.
  • 4
    Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML, Davis WW, Ballard-Barbash R. Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 17041713.
  • 5
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 1998; 352: 930942.
  • 6
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet. 1998; 351: 14511467.
  • 7
    Crown J. Evolution in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 1998; 25: 1217.
  • 8
    Mariotto A, Feuer EJ, Harlan LC, Wun LM, Johnson KA, Abrams J. Trends in the use of adjuvant multi-agent chemotherapy and tamoxifen for breast cancer in the United States: 1975–1999. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 16261634.
  • 9
    Prorock PC, Kramer BS, Gohagan JK. Screening theory and study design: the basics. In: KramerBS, GohaganJK, ProrockPC, editors. Cancer screening: theory and practice. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1999: 2953.
  • 10
    Feinleib M, Zelen M. Some pitfalls in the evaluation of screening programs. Arch Environ Health. 1969; 19: 412415.
  • 11
    Cole P, Morrison AS. Basic issues in population screening for cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1980; 64: 12631272.
  • 12
    Morrison AS. The effects of early treatment, lead time and length bias on the mortality experienced by cases detected by screening. Int J Epidemiol. 1982; 11: 261267.
  • 13
    Adami HO, Sparen P, Bergstrom R, Holmberg L, Krusemo UB, Ponten J. Increasing survival trend after cancer diagnosis in Sweden: 1960–1984. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989; 81: 16401647.
  • 14
    Stockton D, Davies T, Day NE, McCann J. Retrospective study of reasons for improved survival in patients with breast cancer in East Anglia: earlier diagnosis or better treatment. BMJ. 1997; 314: 472475.
  • 15
    Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Recent improvement in survival of breast cancer patients in Saarland, Germany. Br J Cancer. 1998; 78: 694697.
  • 16
    Ugnat AM, Xie L, Morriss J, Semenciw R, Mao Y. Survival of women with breast cancer in Ottawa, Canada: variation with age, stage, histology, grade and treatment. Br J Cancer. 2004; 90: 11381143.
  • 17
    Jemal A, Clegg L, Ward E, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2001, with a special feature regarding survival. Cancer. 2004; 101: 327.
  • 18
    Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: College of American Pathologists consensus statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000; 124: 966978.
  • 19
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989; 63: 181187.
  • 20
    Rosenberg J, Chia YL, Plevritis S. The effect of age, race, tumor size, tumor grade, and disease stage on invasive ductal breast cancer survival in the U.S. SEER database. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005; 89: 4754.
  • 21
    Hankey BF, Ries LA, Edwards BK. The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program: a national resource. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999; 8: 11171121.
  • 22
    Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Schrag D, Bach PB, Riley GF. Overview of the SEER-Medicare data: content, research applications, and generalizability to the United States elderly population. Med Care. 2002; 40: IV-318.
  • 23
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. SEER Program: comparative staging guide for cancer. Version 1.1. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, 1993.
  • 24
    Ederer F, Axtell LM, Cutler SJ. The relative survival rate: a statistical methodology. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1961; 6: 101121.
  • 25
    Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results. A guide to using SEER*Stat. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, Cancer Statistics Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, 2001.
  • 26
    Hennekens CH, Buring JE. Epidemiology in medicine. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1987.
  • 27
    Cochran WG. Some methods of strengthening the common X2 tests. Biometrics. 1954; 10: 417451.
  • 28
    Armitage P. Tests for linear trends in proportions and frequencies. Biometrics. 1955; 11: 375386.
  • 29
    Duffy SW, Tabar L, Vitak B, et al. The relative contributions of screen-detected in situ and invasive breast carcinomas in reducing mortality from the disease. Eur J Cancer. 2003; 39: 17551760.
  • 30
    McCarthy EP, Burns RB, Freunds KM, et al. Mammography use, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and survival among older women. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48: 12261233.
  • 31
    Michaelson JS, Satija S, Kopans D, et al. Gauging the impact of breast carcinoma screening in terms of tumor size and death rate. Cancer. 2003; 98: 21142124.
  • 32
    Parker RG, Leung KM, Rees KS, Bassett LW, Legoretta AP. Mammographic screening downstages breast carcinomas at the time of diagnosis: a community-based experience. Breast J. 1999; 5: 359363.
  • 33
    Solin LJ, Legoretta AP, Schultz DJ, Zatz S, Goodman RL. The importance of mammographic screening relative to the treatment of women with carcinoma of the breast. Arch Intern Med. 1994; 154: 745752.
  • 34
    Solin LJ, Schultz DJ, Legoretta AP, Goodman RL. Downstaging of breast carcinomas in older women associated with mammographic screening. Breast J. 1999; 5: 94100.
  • 35
    Begg CB, Schrag D. Attribution of deaths following cancer treatment [editorial]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 10441045.
  • 36
    Brenner H, Hakulinen T. On crude and age-adjusted relative survival rates. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 11851191.
  • 37
    Brenner H, Arndt V, Gefeller O, Hakulinen T. An alternative approach to age adjustment of cancer survival rates. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40: 23172322.
  • 38
    Hoel DG, Ron E, Carter R, Mabuchi K. Influence of death certification errors on cancer mortality trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85: 10631068.
  • 39
    Lloyd-Jones DM, Martin DO, Larson MG, Levy D. Accuracy of death certificates for coding coronary heart disease as the cause of death. Ann Intern Med. 1998; 129: 10201026.
  • 40
    Ederer F, Geisser MS, Mongin SJ, Church TR, Mandel JS. Colorectal cancer deaths as determined by expert committee and from the death certificate: a comparison. The Minnesota study. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999; 52: 447452.
  • 41
    Lu TH, Shih TP, Lee MC, Chou MC, Lin CK. Diversity in death certification: a case vignette approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 10861093.
  • 42
    Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med. 1993; 328: 12371243.
  • 43
    McMasters KM, Giuliano AE, Ross MI, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy for breast cancer–not yet the standard of care. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 990995.
  • 44
    Boer R, Plevritis S, Clarke L. Diversity of model approaches: a review of model assumptions by the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Groups. Stat Methods Med Res. 2004; 13: 525538.