br Parise CA Bauer KR Brown MM
 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.
 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.
 Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in Cyclosporin H practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:493e502.
 Tosteson AN, Stout NK, Fryback DG, et al. Cost-effectiveness of digital mammography breast cancer screening. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:1e10.
 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.
 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.
 Cong XJ, Shen Y, Miller AB. Estimation of age-specific sensitivity and sojourn time in breast cancer screening studies. Stat Med 2005;24:3123e38.
 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.
 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.
 National Cancer Institute. Sensitivity and Specificity by Indication for Examination for Diagnostic Mammography Examinations, 2004e2008. Rockville, MD: National Cancer Institute. http://breastscreening.canc er.gov/statistics/benchmarks/diagnostic/index.html. [Accessed April 4, 2016].
 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.
 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Assessing and Improving the Interpretation of Breast Image: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015.
 Parmigiani G. Modeling in Medical Decision Making. West Sussex, England: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.; 2002.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Physician Fee Schedule. Baltimore, MD: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2017.
 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.
 American College of Surgeons. NCDB Benchmark Reports. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons; 2016.