References
- Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA. 2014 Jun 25;311(24):2499-507.
- Rafferty EA, Durand MA, Conant EF, et al. Breast Cancer Screening Using Tomosynthesis and Digital Mammography in Dense and Nondense Breasts. JAMA. 2016;315(16): 1784-6.
- Data on file and from public sources, 2017
- Data On File: DHM-06039 Rev 002 Jennifer Bartoshevich, Teri Orefice, Sajjad Mansoor, et.al Internal Study comparing Hologic’s flat paddle to the SmartCurve paddle (18x24cm) (2017).
- FDA submissions P080003, P080003/S001 P080003/S0056.
- Smith A. Improving patient comfort in mammorgraphy. WP-00119 Rev 003 (11/17). Available at https:// www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/Improving%20Patient%20Comfort%20In%20Mammography.pdf
- Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, et. al. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3D mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2016 Aug;17(8):1105-13.
- McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, et al. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography: Outcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016 Jun 1;2(6):737-43.
- Zuckerman SP, Conant EF, Keller BM, et al. Implementation of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography in a Population-based Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Program. Radiology. 2016 Dec;281(3):730-736
- Skaane P, Bandos A, Eben EB, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology. 2014 Jun;271(3):655-63.
- Data on File: TFL-00059
- Data on File: CSR-00116
- Hologic data on file, 2017
- Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. AJR 1993; 161:1167-1172 Previous Mammograms in Patients with Impalpable Breast Carcinoma: Retrospective vs Blinded Interpretation
- Burhenne LJW, Wood SA, D’Orsi CJ, et al. Radiology 2000; 215:554-562 Potential Contribution of Computer-aided Detection to the Sensitivity of Screening Mammography
- Chou C, Lewin J, Chiang C et al. “Clinical Evaluation of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography and Contrast Enhanced Tomosynthesis-Comparison to Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI” Eur J Radiol. 2015 Dec; 84(12):2501-8. [Epub 2015 Oct 1].
- Li L., et al, Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): A retrospective comparison in 66 breast lesions. Diagnostic and Interventional imaging Feb 2017.
- Xing D., et al, Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Comparison to Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Breast Lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr. Mar/Apr 2019.
- Patel BK., et al, Potential Cost Savings of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. AJR Apr 2017.
- Breast MRI - Available at: https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=breastmr= (Accessed in Dec 2019)
- Berg, W.A., et al, Reasons Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer Refuse Breast MR Imaging Screening: ACRIN 6666, Radiology Jan 2010.
- Phillips J, et al. Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) versus MRI in the high-risk screening setting: patient preferences and attitudes. Clin Imaging. Mar – Apr 2017.
- Zuley M, Guo B, Catullo V, et al. “Comparison of Two-dimensional Synthesized Mammograms versus Original Digital Mammograms Alone and in Combination with Tomosynthesis Images.” Radiology. 2014 Jun;271(3):664-71. Epub 2014 Jan 21.
- Durand M, Raghu M, Geisel J, et al. “Synthesized 2D Mammography + Tomosynthesis: Can We See Clearly?” (paper presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Il, December 2015).
- Choi J, Han B, Ko E, et al. “Comparison with Two-Dimensional Synthetic Mammography Reconstructed from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis and Full Field Digital Mammography for the Detection of T1 Breast Cancer.” European Radiology. 2016 Aug;26(8):2538-46. Epub 2015 Dec.
- Woo O, Choi G, Shin H, et al. “Comparative Diagnostic Value of Two-dimensional Synthesized Mammogram and Conventional Full-field Digital Mammogram for Evaluation of Breast Cancer” (poster presented at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Il, December 2015).
- Wang C, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, et al. A novel and fully automated mammographic texture analysis for risk prediction: results from two case-control studies. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):114.
- Winkel, RR, et al. 2016, BMC Cancer, Vol. 16, p. 414. - Mammographic density and structural features can individually and jointly contribute to breast cancer risk assessment in mammography screening: a case–control study.
- Nielsen M, Vachon CM, Scott CG, Chernoff K, Karemore G, Karssemeijer N, Lillholm M, Karsdal MA. 2014, Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 16(2), p. R37. – Mammographic texture resemblance generalizes as an independent risk factor for breast cancer.
- ACR BI-RADS Atlas 5th Edition. 2013. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads (Accessed on 26/09/2020).
- Bloomquist AK, Yaffe MJ, Pisano ED et. al. Quality control for digital mammography in the ACRIN DMIST trial: part I. Med Phys 2006MAN-03608 Revision 006, April 2018