References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Data on file and from public sources, 2017
  4. 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).
  5. FDA submissions P080003, P080003/S001 P080003/S0056.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Data on File: TFL-00059
  12. Data on File: CSR-00116
  13. Hologic data on file, 2017
  14. Harvey JA, Fajardo LL, Innis CA. AJR 1993; 161:1167-1172 Previous Mammograms in Patients with Impalpable Breast Carcinoma: Retrospective vs Blinded Interpretation
  15. 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
  16. 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].
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Patel BK., et al, Potential Cost Savings of Contrast-Enhanced Digital Mammography. AJR Apr 2017.
  20. Breast MRI - Available at: https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=breastmr= (Accessed in Dec 2019)
  21. Berg, W.A., et al, Reasons Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer Refuse Breast MR Imaging Screening: ACRIN 6666, Radiology Jan 2010.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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).
  25. 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.
  26. 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).
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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).
  31. 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

Product Notice

You are about to access medical systems information on the Hologic 3Dimensions™ Mammography System European Website. Product availability differs by region and country and is subject to varied regulatory requirements.

The content of this site is reserved for Health Care Professionals only.

I am a Health Care Professional or similar.

Je suis un professionnel de santé ou assimilé.

Je ne suis pas un professionnel de santé ou assimilé.