The role of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: a manufacturer- and metrics-specific analysis

References

• Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Forman D, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2014;136(5):E359–86. doi:10.1002/ijc.2921025220842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman LN, Willett W, Sievers A, Knaul FM. Breast cancer in developing countries: opportunities for improved survival. J Oncol. 2010;2010:1–6. doi:10.1155/2010/595167
   Google Scholar
• Altobelli E, Lattanzi A. Breast cancer in European Union: an update of screening programmes as of March 2014 (Review). Int J Oncol. 2014;45(5):1785–1792. doi:10.3892/ijo.2014.263225174328
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broeders MH, Moss S, Nyström L, et al. The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of trend studies. J Med Screen. 2012;19(1):26–32. doi:10.1258/jms.2012.012078
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim Y-J, Sechopoulos I, Newell MS, et al. Comparison of two-view digital breast tomosynthesis to three-view digital mammography in a simulated screening setting. Acta Radiol. 2018;60(9)1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dance DR, Strudley CJ, Young KC, et al. Comparison of breast doses for digital tomosynthesis estimated from patient exposures and using PMMA breast phantoms. In: Bakic PR, Gavenonis S, editors. Breast Imaging, 11th International Workshop, IWDM 2012, ADA Maidment, LNCS 7361. Berlin, Springer-Verlag; 2012:  316-321..
   Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, et al. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169(3):489–496. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4705-229429017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell MJ, Batohi B. Role of tomosynthesis in breast imaging going forward. Clin Radiol. 2018;73(4):358–371. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2018.01.00129415806
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodriguez-Ruiz A, Gubern-Merida A, Imhof-Tas M, et al. One-view digital breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone modality for breast cancer detection: do we need more? Eur Radiol. 2017;28(5):1938–1948. doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5167-329230524
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty DP. Recent advances in observer performance methodology: jackknife free-response ROC (JAFROC). Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2005;114(1–3):26–31. doi:10.1093/rpd/nch51215933077
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chakraborty DP. Validation and statistical power comparison of methods for analyzing free-response observer performance studies. Acad Radiol. 2008;15(12):1554–1566. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2008.07.01819000872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(2):141–150. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.00826707815
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mall S, Noakes J, Kossoff M, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis perform better than standard digital mammography work-up in breast cancer assessment clinic? Eur Radiol. 2018;28(12):5182–5194. doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5473-429846804
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouwman RW, Van Engen RE, Young KC, et al. Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data. Phys Med Biol. 2015;60(20):7893–7907. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/60/20/789326407015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, Van Den Bosch MAAJ, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):16–24. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1688-819657655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo M, Kim SA, Chang JM, et al. Addition of digital breast tomosynthesis to full-field digital mammography in the diagnostic setting: additional value and cancer detectability. J Breast Cancer. 2016;19(4):438. doi:10.4048/jbc.2016.19.4.43828053633
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bian T, Lin Q, Cui C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a new diagnostic method for mass-like lesions in dense breasts. Breast J. 2016;22(5):535–540. doi:10.1111/tbj.1262227296324
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliafico A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, et al. Characterisation of microcalcification clusters on 2D digital mammography (FFDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): does DBT underestimate microcalcification clusters? Results of a multicentre study. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(1):9–14. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3402-825163902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(2):320–324.21257882
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Mackenzie A, Wells K, Dance DR, Young KC. The threshold detectable mass diameter for 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med. 2019;57(2018):25–32. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2018.11.01430738528
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Elangovan P, Rashidnasab A, Mackenzie A, et al. Performance comparison of breast imaging modalities using a 4AFC human observer study In: Proc. SPIE 9412, Medical Imaging 2015: Physics of Medical Imaging, 94121T (18 March 2015); Orlando, FL, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Hadjipanteli A, Elangovan P, Mackenzie A, et al. The effect of system geometry and dose on the threshold detectable calcification diameter in 2D-mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(3):858–877. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aa4f6e28072582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackenzie A, Marshall NW, Hadjipanteli A, Dance DR, Bosmans H, Young KC. Characterisation of noise and sharpness of images from four digital breast tomosynthesis systems for simulation of images for virtual clinical trials. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(6):2376–2397. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aa5dd928151431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mainprize JG, Bloomquist AK, Kempston MP, Yaffe MJ. Resolution at oblique incidence angles of a flat panel imager for breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2006;33(9):3159–3164. doi:10.1118/1.224199417022208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Zhang H, Jiang H, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis for breast suspicious calcifications from various populations: a comparison with full-field digital mammography. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2018;17:82–89. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2018.12.00430622686
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dibble EH, Lourenco AP, Baird GL, Ward RC, Maynard AS, Mainiero MB. Comparison of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis in the detection of architectural distortion. Eur Radiol. 2017;28(1):3–10. doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4968-828710582
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clauser P, Nagl G, Helbich TH, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(12):2161–2168. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.00427842661
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asbeutah A, Karmani N, Asbeutah A, Echreshzadehb Y, AlMajran A, Alkhalifah K. Comparison of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) and Digital Mammography (DM) for Detection of Breast Cancer in Women in Kuwait. Med Princ Pract. 2018;28(1):10-15.30476905
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt KR, Craig DA, Hoskins TL, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):291–298. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.888123345348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Good WF, Gordon AS, Victor CJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):865–869. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.284118356430
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallis MG, Moa E, Zanca F, Leifland K, Danielsson M. Two-View and Single-View tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: high-resolution x-ray imaging observer study. Radiology. 2012;262(3):788–796. doi:10.1148/radiol.1110351422274840
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giess CS, Pourjabbar S, Ip IK, Lacson R, Alper E, Khorasani R. Comparing diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography in a hybrid screening environment. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(4):929–934. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.1798328639832
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aase H, Holen ÅS, Pedersen K, et al. A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the to-be trial. Eur Radiol. 2018;29(3):1175–1186. doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x30159620
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):586–591. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.203119620460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi A, Chang JM, Shin SU. et al. Detection of noncalcified breast cancer in patients with extremely dense breasts using digital breast tomosynthesis compared with full-field digital mammography. Br J Radiol.2018;20180101. doi:10.1259/bjr.2018010130235008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(10):976–981. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2012.03.00922625656
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2013;266(1):104–113. doi:10.1148/radiol.1212067423169790
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houssami N, Macaskill P, Bernardi D, et al. Breast screening using 2D-mammography or integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) for single-reading or double-reading – evidence to guide future screening strategies. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(10):1799–1807. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2014.03.01724746887
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomassin-Naggara I, Perrot N, Dechoux S, Ribeiro C, Chopier J, de Bazelaire C. Added value of one-view breast tomosynthesis combined with digital mammography according to reader experience. Eur J Radiol. 2014;84(2):235–241. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.02225467641
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M, Ng KH, Pietrzyk M, Brennan PC. Digital tomosynthesis: A new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol. 2013;68(5):e225–e236. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2013.01.00723465326
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim WH, Chang JM, Koo HR, et al. Impact of prior mammograms on combined reading of digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Acta Radiol. 2017;58(2):148–155. doi:10.1177/028418511664721127178032
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singla D, Chaturvedi AK, Aggarwal A, Rao SA, Hazarika DVM. Comparing the diagnostic efficacy of full field digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis using BIRADS score in a tertiary cancer care hospital. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2018;28(1):115-122.
   Google Scholar
• Bernardi D, Li T, Pellegrini M, et al. Effect of integrating digital breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population screening trial: A descriptive study. Eur J Radiol. 2018;106:26–31. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.07.00830150047
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N, et al. Comparison of synthetic mammography, reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis, and digital mammography: evaluation of lesion conspicuity and BI-RADS assessment categories. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(3):765–773. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4458-328819781
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MG, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme—a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with di. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2015;19(4):1–136. doi:10.3310/hta19030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker L, Gilbert FJ, Astley SM, et al. Does reader performance with digital breast tomosynthesis vary according to experience with two-dimensional mammography? Radiology. 2017;283(2):371–380. doi:10.1148/radiol.201715193628287917
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conant EF, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156(1):109–116. doi:10.1007/s10549-016-3695-126931450
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsheik NH, Dabbous F, Pohlman SK, et al. Comparison of resource utilization and clinical outcomes following screening with digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: findings from a learning health system. Acad Radiol. 2018;60068:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2018.05.026
   Google Scholar
• Ohashi R, Nagao M, Nakamura I, Okamoto T, Sakai S. Improvement in diagnostic performance of breast cancer: comparison between conventional digital mammography alone and conventional mammography plus digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2018;25(5):590–596. doi:10.1007/s12282-018-0859-329651638
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alakhras MM, Brennan PC, Rickard M, Bourne R, Mello-Thoms C. Effect of radiologists’ experience on breast cancer detection and localization using digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol. 2014 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25192796 Accessed September 25, 2014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY trial). Radiology. 2015;277(3):697–706. doi:10.1148/radiol.201514256626176654
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE, et al. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):737–741. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.476021343521
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mariscotti G, Durando M, Houssami N, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography for detecting and characterising invasive lobular cancers: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(9):889–895. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.04.00427210245
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal GJ, Young P. Digital breast tomosynthesis within a symptomatic “One-stop breast clinic” for characterisation of subtle findgins. Br Inst Radiol. 2015;187(1):35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Endo T, Morita T, Oiwa M, et al. Detectability comparison of modes in dual-mode digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer. 2016;24(3):442–450. doi:10.1007/s12282-016-0725-027585694
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durand M, Haas M, Yao X, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology. 2015;274(1):85–92. doi:10.1148/radiol.1413131925188431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. J Am Med Assoc. 2014;311(24):2499–2507. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.6095
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(3):687–693. doi:10.2214/AJR.14.1264224918774
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philipotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. J R Soc Med. 2000;93(5):234–237.10884765
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Margolies L, Cohen A, Sonnenblick E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis changes management in patients seen at a tertiary care breast center. ISRN Radiol. 2014;2014:1–8. doi:10.1155/2014/658929
   Google Scholar
• McCarthy AM, Kontos D, Synnestvedt M, et al. Screening outcomes following implementation of digital breast tomosynthesis in a general-population screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(11). doi:10.1093/jnci/dju061.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of digital breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography: outcomes analysis from 3 years of breast cancer screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–743. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.577826893205
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben PH, Wong KF, Yao A, et al. Breast cancer screening with digital breast tomosynthesis - 4 year experience and comparison with national data. J Chin Med Assoc. 2018;81(1):70–80. doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2017.05.01329129518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:616–623. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.223117715109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell JL, Hawley JR, Lipari AM, Yildiz VO, Erdal BS, Carkaci S. Impact of the addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) to Standard 2D digital screening mammography on the rates of patient recall, cancer detection, and recommendations for short-term follow-up. Acad Radiol. 2017;24(3):302–307. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2016.10.00127919540
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SL, Shisler JL. Tomosynthesis impact on breast cancer screening in patients younger than 50 years old. Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(6):1401–1404. doi:10.2214/AJR.17.1883929629810
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Ice MF, Nordmann AS, Sexton R, Song R. A reader study comparing prospective tomosynthesis interpretations with retrospective readings of the corresponding FFDM examinations. Acad Radiol. 2014;21(9):1204–1210. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2014.04.00825107868
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(6):1401–1408. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.967223701081
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharpe RE, Venkataraman S, Phillips J, et al. Increased cancer detection rate and variations in the recall rate resulting from implementation of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis into a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2016;280(3):981. doi:10.1148/radiol.2016164018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Bandos A, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267(1):47–56.
   Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2061–2071. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2820-323553585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sumkin JH, Bandos AI, Shinde DD, et al. Recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis during baseline screening examinations. Acad Radiol. 2015;22(12):1477–1482. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.01526391857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upadhyay N, Soneji N, Stewart V, Ralleigh G. The effect of the addition of tomosynthesis to digital mammography on reader recall rate and reader confidence in the UK prevalent screening round. Clin Radiol. 2018;73(8):744–749. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2018.03.01329724433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahrs SD, Otto V, Hattermann V, et al. Breast tomosynthesis for the clarification of mammographic BI-RADS 3 lesions can decrease follow-up examinations and enables immediate cancer diagnosis. Acta Radiol. 2018;59(10):1176–1183. doi:10.1177/028418511875645829451022
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen EO, Tso HH, Mayo RC, Leung JWT. Screening mammography findings from one standard projection only in the era of full-field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Women’s Imaging. 2018;211(2):445-451.
   Google Scholar
• Destounis S, Morgan R, Arieno A. Initial experience with combination digital breast tomosynthesis plus full field digital mammography or full field digital mammography alone in the screening environment. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4(1):9. doi:10.4103/2156-7514.12783824744966
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird GL, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology. 2014;274(2):337–342. doi:10.1148/radiol.1414031725247407
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carbonaro LA, Di Leo G, Clauser P, et al. Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(4):808–814. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.01.00426971428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pattacini P, Nitrosi A, Giorgi Rossi P, et al. digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology. 2018;288(2):375–385. doi:10.1148/radiol.201817211929869961
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjørndal H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol. 2012;53(5):524–529. doi:10.1258/ar.2012.12006222593120
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and recall rates for digital mammography and digital mammography combined with one-view and two-view tomosynthesis: results of an enriched reader study. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;202(2):273–281. doi:10.2214/AJR.13.1124024450665
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shin SU, Seo M, Kim WH, et al. Comparative evaluation of average glandular dose and breast cancer detection between single-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) plus single-view digital mammography (DM) and two-view DM: correlation with breast thickness and density. Eur Radiol. 2014;25(1):1–8. doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3399-z25182628
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldherr C, Cerny P, Altermatt HJ, et al. Value of one-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in diagnostic workup of women with clinical signs and symptoms and in women recalled from screening. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):226–231. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.820223255766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: A comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol. 2012;85:1019. doi:10.1259/bjr/53282892
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lång K, Andersson I, Rosso A, Tingberg A, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Performance of one-view breast tomosynthesis as a stand-alone breast cancer screening modality: results from the Malmö breast tomosynthesis screening trial, a population-based study. Eur Radiol. 2015;26(1):184–190. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-3803-325929946
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Timberg P, Båth M, Andersson I, Mattsson S, Tingberg A, Ruschin M. Visibility of microcalcification clusters and masses in breast tomosynthesis image volumes and digital mammography: A 4AFC human observer study. Med Phys. 2012;39(5):2431–2437. doi:10.1118/1.3694105\n22559613
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whelehan P, Heywang-Köbrunner SH, Vinnicombe SJ, et al. Clinical performance of Siemens digital breast tomosynthesis versus standard supplementary mammography for the assessment of screen-detected soft-tissue abnormalities: a multi-reader study. Clin Radiol. 2016;72(1):95.e9–95.e15. doi:10.1016/j.crad.2016.08.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zackrisson S, Lång K, Rosso A, et al. One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(11):1493–1503. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30144-X30322817
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heywang-Köbrunner S, Jaensch A, Hacker A, Wulz-Horber S, Mertelmeier T, Hölzel D. Value of digital breast tomosynthesis versus additional views for the assessment of screen-detected abnormalities - a first analysis. Breast Care. 2017;12(2):92–97. doi:10.1159/00045664928559765
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennaro G, Toledano A, Di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2009;20(7):1545–1553. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1688-820033175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chae EY, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ. Detection and characterization of breast lesions in a selective diagnostic population: diagnostic accuracy study for comparison between one-view digital breast tomosynthesis and two-view full-field digital mammography. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1062):9–13. doi:10.1259/bjr.20150743
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennaro G, Hendrick RE, Toledano A, et al. Combination of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis with one-view digital mammography versus standard two-view digital mammography: per lesion analysis. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(8):2087–2094. doi:10.1007/s00330-013-2831-023620367
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang H-J, Chang JM, Lee J, et al. Replacing single-view mediolateral oblique (MLO) digital mammography (DM) with synthesized mammography (SM) with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) images: comparison of the diagnostic performance and radiation dose with two-view DM with or without MLO-DB. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85(11):2042–2048. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.09.00727776658
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svahn T, Andersson I, Chakraborty D, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of dual-view digital mammography, single-view breast tomosynthesis and a dual-view combination of breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography in a free-response observer performance study. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;139(1–3):113–117. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncq04420228048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, et al. Dose Reduction in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images. Acad Radiol. 2012;19(2):166–171. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.00322098941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JS, Han B-K, Ko EY, et al. Comparison between two-dimensional synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of T1 breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2015;26(8):2538–2546. doi:10.1007/s00330-015-4083-726628063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi JS, Han BK, Ko EY, Kim GR, Ko ES, Park KW. Comparison of synthetic and digital mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis or alone for the detection and classification of microcalcifications. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(1):319–329. doi:10.1007/s00330-018-5585-x29931560
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garayoa J, Chevalier M, Castillo M, et al. Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations. Eur Radiol. 2017;28(2):565–572. doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4991-928812190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology. 2014;271(3):664–671. doi:10.1148/radiol.1313153024475859
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;17(8):1105–1113. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-227345635
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caumo F, Rella R, Brunelli S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis with synthesized two-dimensional images versus full-field digital mammography for population screening: outcomes from the verona screening program. Radiology. 2017;287(1):37–46. doi:10.1148/radiol.201717074529237146
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofvind S, Hovda T, ÅS H, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2018;171361. doi:10.1148/radiol.2018171361.
   Google Scholar
• Martín SR, Povedano JLR, García MC, Romero ALS, Garriguet MP, Benito MÁ. Prospective study aiming to compare 2D mammography and tomosynthesis + synthesized mammography in terms of cancer detection and recall. From double reading of 2D mammography to single reading of tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(6):2484–2491. doi:10.1007/s00330-017-5219-829294150
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuckerman SP, Keller BM, McDonald ES, et al. Implementation of synthesized two-dimensional mammography in a population-based digital breast tomosynthesis screening program. Radiology. 2016;281(3):730–736. doi:10.1148/radiol.201616036627467468
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freer PE, Riegert J, Eisenmenger L, et al. Clinical implementation of synthesized mammography with digital breast tomosynthesis in a routine clinical practice. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;166(2):501–509. doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4431-128780702
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambinder EB, Harvey SC, Panigrahi B, Li X, Woods RW. Synthesized mammography: the new standard of care when screening for breast cancer with digital breast tomosynthesis? Acad Radiol. 2018;25(8):973–976. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2017.12.01529395801
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aujero MP, Gavenonis SC, Benjamin R, Zhang Z, Holt JS. Clinical Performance of Synthesized Two-dimensional Mammography Combined with Tomosynthesis in a Large Screening Population. Radiology 2017;283(1):70-76. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2017162674
   Google Scholar
• Skaane P, Bandos AI, 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;271(3):655–663.24484063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caumo F, Romanucci G, Hunter K, et al. Comparison of breast cancers detected in the Verona screening program following transition to digital breast tomosynthesis screening with cancers detected at digital mammography screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;170(2):391–397. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4756-429557996
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratanaprasatporn L, Chikarmane SA, Giess CS. Strengths and weaknesses of synthetic mammography in screening. RadioGraphics. 2017;37(7):1913–1927. doi:10.1148/rg.201716401229131762
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith A. Hologic. Breast Tomosynthesis: The Use of Breast Tomosynthesis in a Clinical Setting; White Paper. Hologic; 2015 Available from: http://www.hologic.ca/sites/default/files/WP-00060_Tomo%20White%20Paper_Rev5.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Houssami N, Bernardi D, Pellegrini M, et al. Breast cancer detection using single-reading of breast tomosynthesis (3D-mammography) compared to double-reading of 2D-mammography: evidence from a population-based trial. Cancer Epidemiol. 2017;47:94–99. doi:10.1016/j.canep.2017.01.00828192742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernardi D, Belli P, Benelli E, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): recommendations from the Italian College of Breast Radiologists (ICBR) by the Italian Society of Medical Radiology (SIRM) and the Italian Group for Mammography Screening (GISMa). Radiol Med. 2017;122(10):723–730. doi:10.1007/s11547-017-0769-z28540564
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar