BrownC, NevolaA, MartinBC. Lack of impact of 2009 USPSTF guidelines on rates of mammography screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt), 2018; 27:875–884.
2.
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 2009; 151:716–726, W-236.
3.
Joinpoint Regression Program, Version 4.6.0.0. April, 2018; Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute. KimHJ, FayMP, FeuerEJ, MidthuneDN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med, 2000; 19:335–351 (Erratum in: 2001;19:655).
4.
BerlinL, HallFM. More mammography muddle: Emotions, politics, science, costs, and polarization [editorial]. Radiology, 2010; 255:311–316.
5.
Biller-AndornoN, JüniP. Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med, 2014; 370:1965–1967.
6.
American College of Radiology.. Detailed ACR statement on ill-advised and dangerous USPSTF mammography recommendations. November 16, 2009. Available at: www.acr.org/Advocacy-and-Economics/ACR-Position-Statements/Ill-Advised-and-Dangerous-USPSTF-Mammography-Recommendations Accessed April4, 2018.
7.
LeeCH, DershawD, Daniel KopansD, et al.Breast cancer screening with imaging: Recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol, 2010; 7:18–27.
8.
KopansDB. The 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines ignore important scientific evidence and should be revised or withdrawn. Radiology, 2010; 256:15–20.
9.
KopansDB. Point: The New England Journal of Medicine article suggesting overdiagnosis from mammography screening is scientifically incorrect and should be withdrawn. J Am Coll Radiol, 2013; 10:317–319; discussion 323.
10.
KopansDB. Why the critics of screening mammography are wrong. Diagn Imaging, 2009; 31:18–24.
11.
PetittiDB, CalongeN, LeFevreML, MelnykBM, WiltTJ, SchwartzJS. Breast cancer screening: From science to recommendation. Radiology, 2010; 256:8–14.
12.
Re: Draft USPSTF recommendations on breast cancer screening. Available at: www.sbi-online.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20ACR%20SBI%20USPSTF%20COMMENTS%20Submitted.pdf Accessed April4, 2018.
13.
Siu AL;U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med, 2016; 164:279–296.
14.
BrawleyO, ByersT, ChenA, et al.New American Cancer Society process for creating trustworthy cancer screening guidelines. JAMA, 2011; 306:2495–2499.
15.
OeffingerKC, FonthamET, EtzioniR, et al.Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 Guideline Update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA, 2015; 314:1599–1614.
16.
ACR Appropriateness Criteria organization and composition of expert panels. Available at: www.acr.org Clinical-Resources/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria/Expert-Panels Accessed April19, 2018.
17.
O'DonoghueC, EklundM, OzanneEM, EssermanLJ. Aggregate Cost of Mammography Screening in the United States: Comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines. Ann Intern Med, 2014; 160:145–153.
18.
WelchHG. Cancer Screening, overdiagnosis, and regulatory capture. JAMA Intern Med, 2017; 177:915–916.
19.
LinKW, GostinLO. A Public health framework for screening mammography: Evidence-based vs politically mandated care. JAMA, 2016; 315:977–978.
20.
Patents by Inventor Daniel B. Kopans. Justia patents. Available at: https://patents.justia.com/inventor/daniel-b-kopans Accessed April2, 2018.
21.
WebbML, KopansDB, CadyB. Reply to: Spinosa JP, Riva C, Autier P, et al. A failure analysis of invasive breast cancer: Most deaths from disease occur in women not regularly screened. Cancer, 2014; 120:2937–2938. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28528.
22.
WegwarthO, GigerenzerG. The barrier to informed choice in cancer screening: Statistical illiteracy in physicians and patients. Recent Results Cancer Res, 2018; 210:207–221.
23.
NaglerRH, Franklin FowlerE, GollustSE. Women's awareness of and responses to messages about breast cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment: Results From a 2016 national survey. Med Care, 2017; 55:879–885.
24.
FowlerFJJr., GersteinBS, BarryMJ. How patient centered are medical decisions?: Results of a national survey. JAMA Intern Med, 2013; 173:1215–1221.
25.
WegwarthO, WagnerGG, GigerenzerG. Can facts trump unconditional trust? Evidence-based information halves the influence of physicians' non-evidence-based cancer screening recommendations. PLoS One, 2017; 12:e0183024.
26.
SaverBG, MazorKM, LuckmannR, et al.Persuasive interventions for controversial cancer screening recommendations: Testing a novel approach to help patients make evidence-based decisions. Ann Fam Med, 2017; 15:48–55.
27.
WegwarthO, GigerenzerG. Less is more: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment: Evaluation of what physicians tell their patients about screening harms. JAMA Intern Med, 2013; 173:2086–2087.
28.
GradyD, RedbergRF. Physician adherence to breast cancer screening recommendations. JAMA Intern Med, 2017; 177:763–764.
29.
RadhakrishnanA, NowakSA, ParkerAM, VisvanathanK, PollackCE. Physician breast cancer screening recommendations following guideline changes: Results of a national survey. JAMA Intern Med, 2017; 177:877–878.
30.
WelchHG. Less medicine, more health: Seven assumptions that drive too much medical care. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 2015:1–218.
31.
RadhakrishnanA, NowakSA, ParkerAM, VisvanathanK, PollackCE. Linking physician attitudes to their breast cancer screening practices: A survey of US primary care providers and gynecologists. Prev Med, 2018; 107:90–102.
32.
ScheelJR, HippeDS, ChenLE, et al.Are physicians influenced by their own specialty society's guidelines regarding mammography screening? An analysis of nationally representative data. Am J Radiol, 2016; 207:959–964.
33.
MartinezKA, DeshpandeA, RuffAL, BolenSD, TengK, RothbergMB. Are providers prepared to engage younger women in shared decision-making for mammography?. J Women's Health (Larchmt), 2018; 27; 24–31.
34.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program (www.seer.cancer.gov) SEER*Stat Database: Incidence—SEER 9 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2015 Sub (2000–2012) <Katrina/Rita Population Adjustment>—Linked To County Attributes—Total U.S., 1969–2015 Counties, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch, released April 2018, based on the November 2015 submission.