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 digital mammography alone

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 1-166

  Gilbert, Fiona J ^a   Tucker, Lorraine ^a   Gillan, Maureen G C ^b   Willsher, Paula ^a   Cooke, Julie ^c   Duncan, Karen A ^d   Michell, Michael J ^e   Dobson, Hilary M ^f   Lim, Yit Yoong ^g   Purushothaman, Hema ^h   Strudley, Celia ⁱ   Astley, Susan M ^j   Morrish, Oliver ^k   Young, Kenneth C ⁱ   Duffy, Stephen W ^l  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^c Jarvis Breast Screening Centre   (United Kingdom)

^d North East Scotland Breast Screening Centre ^*  (United Kingdom)

^e KING S COLLEGE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^f West of Scotland Breast Screening Service   (United Kingdom)

^g MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^h ST BARTHOLOMEW S HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ ROYAL SURREY COUNTY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^j UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^k CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^l QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST DENSITY; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER RISK; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY SYSTEM; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; REPRODUCIBILITY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TUMOR INVASION; TUMOR VOLUME; UNITED KINGDOM; VOLUMETRY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DEVICES; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER STUDY; PATHOLOGY; PROCEDURES; RISK FACTOR;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK FACTORS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84921627651     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta19040     Document Type: Article

References (153)

1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012;380:1778–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0
2. Michell MJ. Breast screening review: a radiologist’s perspective. Br J Radiol 2012;85:845–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/21332901
3. Duncan KA, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, Deans HE. Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn? Clin Radiol 1998;53:29–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9260(98)80030-5
4. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Int Med 2003;138:168–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-00008
5. 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;205:1165–75.
6. Rosenberg RD, Hunt WC, Williamson MR, Gilliland FD, Wiest PW, Kelsey CA, et al. Effects of age, breast density, ethnicity, and estrogen replacement therapy on screening mammographic sensitivity and cancer stage at diagnosis: review of 183,134 screening mammograms in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Radiology 1998;209:511–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807581
7. Day N, Warren R. Mammographic screening and mammographic patterns. Breast Cancer Res 2000;2:247–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr64
8. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Canc Inst 2000;92:1081–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.13.1081
9. Chiu SY, Duffy S, Yen AM, Tabar L, Smith RA, Chen HH. Effect of baseline breast density on breast cancer incidence, stage, mortality, and screening parameters: 25-year follow-up of a Swedish mammographic screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:1219–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1028
10. van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH, Holland R. Effect of mammographic breast density on breast cancer screening performance: a study in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:267–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.52.4.267
11. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Canc Inst 2004;96:1432–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djh269
12. Sala E, Warren R, Duffy S, Welch A, Luben R, Day N. High risk mammographic parenchymal patterns and diet: a case–control study. Br J Cancer 2000;83:121–6.
13. Nickson C, Kavanagh AM. Tumour size at detection according to different measures of mammographic breast density. J Med Screen 2009;16:140–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jms.2009.009054
14. Department of Health (DH). Cancer Reform Strategy. London: DH; 2007.
15. Moser K, Sellars S, Wheaton M, Cooke J, Duncan A, Maxwell A, et al. Extending the age range for breast screening in England: pilot study to assess the feasibility and acceptability of randomization. J Med Screen 2011;18:96–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jms.2011.011065
16. Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, Perrin RL, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:586–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.2031
17. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013;266:104–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674
18. Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Incremental effect from integrating 3D-mammography (tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography: increased breast cancer detection evident for screening centres in a population-based trial. Breast 2014;23:76–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.11.006
19. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267:47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12121373
20. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, Tuttobene P, Fanto C, Valentini M, et al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res 2012;133:267–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-1959-y
21. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, Watson E, Austoker J. The psychological impact of mammographic screening: a systematic review. Psycho-oncology 2005;14:917–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pon.904
22. Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, et al. Psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms in the UK. Evid Based Med 2013;18:54–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/eb-2012-100608
23. Dobbins JT 3rd, Godfrey DJ. Digital X-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. Phys Med Biol 2003;48:R65–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/48/19/R01
24. Smith A. Full-field breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Manage 2005;27:25–31.
25. Dobbins JT III. Tomosynthesis imaging: at a translational crossroads. Med Phys 2009;36:1956–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3120285
26. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I: the image acquisition process. Med Phys 2013;40:014301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4770279
27. Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part II: image reconstruction, processing and analysis, and advanced applications. Med Phys 2013;40:014302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.4770281
28. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, Opsahl-Ong BH, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997;205:399–406. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356620
29. Suryanarayanan S, Karellas A, Vedantham S, Glick SJ, D’Orsi CJ, Baker SP, et al. Comparison of tomosynthesis methods used with digital mammography. Acad Radiol 2000;7:1085–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(00)80061-6
30. Wu T, Stewart A, Stanton M, McCauley T, Phillips W, Kopans DB, et al. Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. Med Phys 2003;30:365–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.1543934
31. Skaane P, Gullien R, Bjorndal H, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): initial experience in a clinical setting. Acta Radiol 2012;53:524–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/ar.2012.120062
32. Yang TL, Liang HL, Chou CP, Huang JS, Pan HB. The adjunctive digital breast tomosynthesis in diagnosis of breast cancer. BioMed Res Int 2013;2013:597253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/597253
33. Svane G, Azavedo E, Lindman K, Urech M, Nilsson J, Weber N, et al. Clinical experience of photon counting breast tomosynthesis: comparison with traditional mammography. Acta Radiol 2011;52:134–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/ar.2010.100262
34. Timberg P, Bath M, Andersson I, Mattsson S, Tingberg A, Ruschin M. In-plane visibility of lesions using breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography. Med Phys 2010;37:5618–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3488899
35. Fornvik D, Zackrisson S, Ljungberg O, Svahn T, Timberg P, Tingberg A, et al. Breast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 2010;51:240–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/02841850903524447
36. Seo N, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Kim H, Moon JH, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography: comparison of the accuracy of lesion measurement and characterization using specimens [published online ahead of print 4 September 2013]. Acta Radiol 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0284185113503636
37. Mun HS, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Cha JH, Ruppel PL, Oh HY, et al. Assessment of extent of breast cancer: comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography. Clin Radiol 2013;68:1254–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.07.006
38. Luparia A, Mariscotti G, Durando M, Ciatto S, Bosco D, Campanino PP, et al. Accuracy of tumour size assessment in the preoperative staging of breast cancer: comparison of digital mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MRI. Radiol Med 2013;118:1119–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11547-013-0941-z
39. Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010;195:W172–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3244
40. Zuley ML, Bandos AI, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Kelly AE, Catullo VJ, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus supplemental diagnostic mammographic views for evaluation of noncalcified breast lesions. Radiology 2013;266:89–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120552
41. Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescinito G, Calabrese M. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012:22:539–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-011-2305-1
42. Noroozian M, Hadjiiski L, Rahnama-Moghadam S, Klein KA, Jeffries DO, Pinsky RW, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis is comparable to mammographic spot views for mass characterization. Radiology 2012;262:61–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101763
43. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM. Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:616–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2231
44. Spangler ML, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Abrams G, Ganott MA, Hakim C, et al. Detection and classification of calcifications on digital breast tomosynthesis and 2D digital mammography: a comparison. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:320–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4656
45. Michell MJ, Iqbal A, Wasan RK, Evans DR, Peacock C, Lawinski CP, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesis. Clin Radiol 2012;67:976–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.03.009
46. 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;262:788–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11103514
47. Teertstra HJ, Loo CE, van den Bosch MA, van Tinteren H, Rutgers EJ, Muller SH, et al. Breast tomosynthesis in clinical practice: initial results. Eur Radiol 2010;20:16–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1523-2
48. Andersson I, Ikeda DM, Zackrisson S, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of breast cancer visibility and BIRADS classification in a population of cancers with subtle mammographic findings. Eur Radiol 2008;18:2817–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-1076-9
49. Kopans D, Gavenonis S, Halpern E, Moore R. Calcifications in the breast and digital breast tomosynthesis. Breast J 2011;17:638–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01152.x
50. Reiser I, Nishikawa RM, Edwards AV, Kopans DB, Schmidt RA, Papaioannou J, et al. Automated detection of microcalcification clusters for digital breast tomosynthesis using projection data only: a preliminary study. Med Phys 2008;35:1486–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.2885366
51. Timberg P, Lang K, Nystrom M, Holmqvist K, Wagner P, Fornvik D, et al. Investigation of viewing procedures for interpretation of breast tomosynthesis image volumes: a detection-task study with eye tracking. Eur Radiol 2013;23:997–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2675-z
52. Das M, Gifford HC, O’Connor JM, Glick SJ. Evaluation of a variable dose acquisition technique for microcalcification and mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys 2009;36:1976–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3116902
53. Nishikawa RM, Reiser I, Seifi P. A new approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening. Proc SPIE Med Imaging 2007;6510:65103C–65108.
54. Tingberg A, Andersson I, Ikeda D, Ruschin M, Svahn T, Timberg P. BIRADS classification of breast tomosynthesis compared to mammography and ultrasonography. In Krupinski EA, editor. Digital Mammography: 9th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Tucson, AZ: Heidelberg Springer; 2008. pp. 67–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70538-3_10
55. Svahn TM, Chakraborty DP, Ikeda D, Zackrisson S, Do Y, Mattsson S, et al. Breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography: a comparison of diagnostic accuracy. Br J Radiol 2012;85:1019, e1074–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/53282892
56. Thibault F, Dromain C, Breucq C, Balleyguier CS, Malhaire C, Steyaert L, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus mammography and breast ultrasound: a multireader performance study. Eur Radiol 2013;23:2441–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2863-5
57. Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, Baldan E, Bezzon E, La Grassa M, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1545–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1699-5
58. Smith AP, Rafferty EA, Niklason L. Clinical performance of breast tomosynthesis as a function of radiologist experience level. In Kuprinski EA, editor. Digital Mammography: 9th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Tucson, AZ: Heidelberg Springer; 2008. pp. 61–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70538-3_9
59. Haas B, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts L. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013;269:694–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130307
60. Rose SL, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, Sexton R Jr, Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: an observational study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200:1401–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9672
61. Diekmann F, Bick U. Breast tomosynthesis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2011;32:281–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2011.03.002
62. Tingberg A, Fornvik D, Mattsson S, Svahn T, Timberg P, Zackrisson S. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis: initial experiences. Radiat Prot Dosimetry 2011;147:180–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rpd/ncr296
63. Alakhras M, Bourne R, Rickard M, Ng KH, Pietrzyk M, Brennan PC. Digital tomosynthesis: a new future for breast imaging? Clin Radiol 2013;68:225–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2013.01.007
64. Houssami N, Skaane P. Overview of the evidence on digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer detection. Breast 2013;22:101–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2013.01.017
65. Evaluation of BreastScreen Australia Program. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Overview of the Evidence and Issues for Its Use in Screening for Breast Cancer. Australia: Department of Health and Ageing, Australian Government; 2013.
66. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, et al. Integration of 3D digital mammography with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective comparison study. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:583–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70134-7
67. Gur D. Tomosynthesis: potential clinical role in breast imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:614–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2588
68. Good WF, Abrams GS, Catullo VJ, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Hakim CM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot observer study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008;190:865–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.2841
69. Kopans DB. Mammography: yet another challenge. Radiology 2009;253:587–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533091517
70. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, Rathfon GY, Chough DM, Ganott MA, et al. Dose reduction in digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening using synthetically reconstructed projection images: an observer performance study. Acad Radiol 2012;19:166–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.003
71. Lee CI, Lehman CD. Digital breast tomosynthesis and the challenges of implementing an emerging breast cancer screening technology into clinical practice. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10:913–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2013.09.010
72. Helvie MA. Digital mammography imaging: breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010;48:917–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2010.06.009
73. Baker JA, Lo JY. Breast tomosynthesis: state-of-the-art and review of the literature. Acad Radiol 2011;18:298–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2011.06.011
74. AETNA. Clinical Policy Bulletin: Mammography. URL: www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/500_599/0584.html (accessed 15 December 2013).
75. Mundy L, Liufu V, Braunack-Mayer A, Merlin T, Hiller JE. New and Emerging Technologies for Breast Cancer Detection: Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network. Emerging Technology Bulletin. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government; 2009.
76. Technology Assessment No. 9: Digital breast tomosynthesis. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:1415–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000431055.71711.dc
77. Oslo University Hospital. Tomosynthesis in the Oslo Breast Cancer Screening Program (DBT). URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01248546 (accessed 4 November 2013).
78. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Eben EB, Jebsen IN, Krager M, Haakenaasen U, et al. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically reconstructed projetion images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital mammographic images. Radiology 2014;271:655–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131391
79. Berg WA. Tailored supplemental screening for breast cancer: what now and what next? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:390–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1706
80. Gilbert FJ, Young KC, Astley SM, Whelehan P, Gillan MGC. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. NHSBSP Publication No. 69. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2010.
81. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Familial Breast Cancer: Classification and Care of People at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer and Management of Breast Cancer and Related Risks in People with a Family History of Breast Cancer. London, UK: NICE; 2013. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg41 (accessed August 2013).
82. Law J, Faulkner K, Young KC. Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays and their implications for breast screening. Br J Radiol 2007;80:261–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/20496795
83. Young KC, Faulkner K, Wall B, Muirhead C. Review of Radiation Risk in Breast Screening. NHSBSP Publication No. 54. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2003.
84. Kulama E, Burch A, Castellano I, Lawinski CP, Marshall NW, Young KC. Commissioning and Routine Testing of Full Field Digital Mammography Systems. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0604 Version 3. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2009.
85. Maxwell AJ, Ridley NT, Rubin G, Wallis MG, Gilbert FJ, Michell MJ. The Royal College of Radiologists Breast Group breast imaging classification. Clin Radiol 2009;64:624–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.01.010
86. Kopans DB. Basic physics and doubts about relationship between mammographically determined tissue density and breast cancer risk. Radiology 2008;246:348–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2461070309
87. Aitken Z, McCormack VA, Highnam RP, Martin L, Gunasekara A, Melnichouk O, et al. Screen-film mammographic density and breast cancer risk: a comparison of the volumetric standard mammogram form and the interactive threshold measurement methods. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:418–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1059
88. Uematsu T. The emerging role of breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 2013;20:204–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0456-4
89. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH. Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell Science; 1997.
90. McNemar Q. Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 1947;12:153–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02295996
91. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2531595
92. Astley SM, Connor S, Lim Y, Tate C, Entwistle H, Morris J, et al. A comparison of image interpretation times in full field digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis. Proc SPIE 8637 Medical Imaging 2013: Image Perception, Observer Performance, and Technology Assessment. http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2006039
93. Assi V, Warwick J, Cuzick J, Duffy SW. Clinical and epidemiological issues in mammographic density. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2012;9:33–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.173
94. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1159–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0034
95. Boyd NF, Byng JW, Jong RA, Fishell EK, Little LE, Miller AB, et al. Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. J Natl Canc Inst 1995;87:670–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/87.9.670
96. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, Sun L, Stone J, Fishell E, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356:227–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062790
97. Boyd N, Martin L, Gunasekara A, Melnichouk O, Maudsley G, Peressotti C, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: evaluation of a novel method of measuring breast tissue volumes. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18:1754–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0107
98. Boyd N, Martin L, Chavez S, Gunasekara A, Salleh A, Melnichouk O, et al. Breast-tissue composition and other risk factors for breast cancer in young women: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Oncol 2009;10:569–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70078-6
99. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Yaffe MJ, Minkin S. Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects. Breast Cancer Res 2011;13:223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2942
100. Cuzick J, Forbes JF, Howell A. Re: Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 study. J Natl Canc Inst 2006;98:643; author reply–4.
101. Vachon CM, van Gils CH, Sellers TA, Ghosh K, Pruthi S, Brandt KR, et al. Mammographic density, breast cancer risk and risk prediction. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9:217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr1829
102. Ursin G, Ma H, Wu AH, Bernstein L, Salane M, Parisky YR, et al. Mammographic density and breast cancer in three ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:332–8.
103. Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, Parekh N, Salane M, Brinton LA, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Canc Inst 1995;87:1622–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/87.21.1622
104. Torres-Mejia G, De Stavola B, Allen DS, Perez-Gavilan JJ, Ferreira JM, Fentiman IS, et al. Mammographic features and subsequent risk of breast cancer: a comparison of qualitative and quantitative evaluations in the Guernsey prospective studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:1052–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0717
105. Ziv E, Shepherd J, Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K. Mammographic breast density and family history of breast cancer. J Natl Canc Inst 2003;95:556–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/95.7.556
106. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1996.03540010035027
107. Chiarelli AM, Kirsh VA, Klar NS, Shumak R, Jong R, Fishell E, et al. Influence of patterns of hormone replacement therapy use and mammographic density on breast cancer detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1856–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0290
108. Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Sellers TA, Reynolds C, Scott CG, Maloney SD, et al. Association of mammographic density with the pathology of subsequent breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:872–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0559
109. Aiello EJ, Buist DS, White E, Porter PL. Association between mammographic breast density and breast cancer tumor characteristics. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:662–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0327
110. Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Rosner B, Vachon C, et al. Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. J Natl Canc Inst 2011;103:1179–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr225
111. Sala E, Solomon L, Warren R, McCann J, Duffy S, Luben R, et al. Size, node status and grade of breast tumours: association with mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur Radiol 2000;10:157–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s003300050025
112. Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE, Wray LA, Helvie MA. Invasive cancers detected after breast cancer screening yielded a negative result: relationship of mammographic density to tumor prognostic factors. Radiology 2004;230:42–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301020589
113. Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA, Geller B, Dittus K, Braithwaite D, et al. Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA 2013;173:807–16.
114. van Gils CH, Otten JD, Verbeek AL, Hendriks JH. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: masking bias or causality? Eur J Epidemiol 1998;14:315–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007423824675
115. Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Clinical practice: mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:1672–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp021804
116. Corsetti V, Houssami N, Ghirardi M, Ferrari A, Speziani M, Bellarosa S, et al. Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer 2011;47:1021–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.12.002
117. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, Jong RA, Pisano ED, Barr RG, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012;307:1394–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.388
118. Nothacker M, Duda V, Hahn M, Warm M, Degenhardt F, Madjar H, et al. Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review. BMC Cancer 2009;9:335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-9-335
119. Houssami N, Kerlikowske K. The impact of breast density on breast cancer risk and breast screening. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2012;4:161–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12609-012-0070-z
120. Are You Dense, Inc. Are You Dense? Exposing the Best-Kept Secret®; 2012. URL: www.areyoudense.org (accessed 29 December 2014).
121. Wang J, Azziz A, Fan B, Malkov S, Klifa C, Newitt D, et al. Agreement of mammographic measures of volumetric breast density to MRI. PLOS ONE 2013;8:e81653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081653
122. Nicholson BT, LoRusso AP, Smolkin M, Bovbjerg VE, Petroni GR, Harvey JA. Accuracy of assigned BI-RADS breast density category definitions. Acad Radiol 2006;13:1143–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2006.06.005
123. Martin KE, Helvie MA, Zhou C, Roubidoux MA, Bailey JE, Paramagul C, et al. Mammographic density measured with quantitative computer-aided method: comparison with radiologists’ estimates and BI-RADS categories. Radiology 2006;240:656–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2402041947
124. Wang XH, Good WF, Chapman BE, Chang YH, Poller WR, Chang TS, et al. Automated assessment of the composition of breast tissue revealed on tissue-thickness-corrected mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:257–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/ajr.180.1.1800257
125. Byng JW, Yaffe MJ, Jong RA, Shumak RS, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, et al. Analysis of mammographic density and breast cancer risk from digitized mammograms. Radiographics 1998;18:1587–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.18.6.9821201
126. Conant EF, Li D, Gavenonis S, Bakic PR, Carton AK, Zang C, et al. A comparative study of the inter-reader variability of breast percent density estimation in digital mammography: potential effect of readers training and clinical experience. In J Marti, Oliver A, Freixenet J, editors. Digital Mammography: 10th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Girona, Catalonia, Spain: Heidelberg Springer; 2010. pp. 114–120.
127. Yaffe MJ. Advanced Applications of Digital Mammography. Pisani ED, Yaffe MJ, Kuzmiak C, editors. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
128. Hartman K, Highnam R, Warren R, Jackson V. Volumetric assessment of breast tissue composition from FFDM images. In Krupinksi EA, editors. Digital Mammography: 9th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Tucson, AZ: Heidelberg Springer; 2008. pp. 33–9.
129. HTA Programme. TOMMY Trial: A Comparison of TOMosynthesis with Digital MammographY in the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme (26 August 2013). URL: www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/0922182 (accessed 11 November 2014).
130. Highnam R, Brady MS, Yaffe M, Karssemeijer N, Harvey J. Robust breast composition: Volpara™. In Marti J, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Marti R, editors. Digital Mammography: 10th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Girona, Catalonia, Spain: Heidelberg Springer; 2010. pp. 342–9.
131. Sergeant JC, Warwick J, Evans DG, Howell A, Berks M, Stavrinos P, et al. Volumetric and area-based breast density measurement in the Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study. In Maidment AA, Bakic P, Gavenonis S, editors. Breast Imaging: 11th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Philadelphia, PA: Heidelberg Springer; 2012. pp. 228–35.
132. Makaronidis J, Berks M, Sergeant J, Morris J, Boggis C, Wilson M, et al. Assessment of breast density: reader performance using synthetic mammographic images. In Manning DJ, Abbey CK, editors. Medical Imaging 2011: Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment. Lake Buena Vista: Florida; 2011. pp. 796603.
133. Sperrin M, Bardwell L, Sergeant JC, Astley S, Buchan I. Correcting for rater bias in scores on a continuous scale, with application to breast density. Stat Med 2013;32:4666–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.5848
134. McCormack VA, Highnam R, Perry N, dos Santos Silva I. Comparison of a new and existing method of mammographic density measurement: intramethod reliability and associations with known risk factors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:1148–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0085
135. Sukha A, Berks M, Morris J, Boggis C, Wilson M, Barr N, et al. Visual assessment of density in digital mammograms. 10th International Workshop on Digital Mammography, Girona, Catalonia, Spain: Heidelberg Springer; 2010. pp. 414–20.
136. Shepherd JA, Kerlikowske K, Ma L, Duewer F, Fan B, Wang J, et al. Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20:1473–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-1150
137. Duffy SW, Rohan TE, Altman DG. A method for combining matched and unmatched binary data: application to randomized, controlled trials of photocoagulation in the treatment of diabetic retinopathy. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:371–8.
138. Barry-Brooks MA, Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB. Breast cancer screening pre and post-tomosynthesis: comparison of recall rate, biopsy positive predictive value and cancer detection rate. Paper presented at the Radiological Society of North America 2013 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago, November 2013.
139. Conant EF. Clinical implication of digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiol Clin N Am 2014;52:499–518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2013.11.013
140. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, Durand MA, Plecha DM, Greenberg JS, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311:2499–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.6095
141. Gur D, Bandos AI, Rockette HE, Zuley ML, Sumkin JH, Chough DM, et al. Localized detection and classification of abnormalities on FFDM and tomosynthesis examinations rated under an FROC paradigm. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:737–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4760
142. Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:299–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11520
143. Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo UJ, Chough DM, Kelly AE, Lu AH, et al. Comparison of two dimensional synthesised mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014;271: 664–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131530
144. Locatelli M, Tonutti M, Trianni A. First Experience with the new Generation Low-dose Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: can 2D Synthetic Image Replace Digital Mammography in Combination with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis? Paper presented at the European Congress of Radiology, Vienna, 2014.
145. American College of Radiology. ACR statement on Breast Tomosynthesis. 2014. URL: www.acr.org/About-Us/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2014-Press-Releases/20140722-ACR-Statement-on-Breast-Tomosynthesis (accessed 4 November 2014).
146. Young K. OPTIMAM 2: Optimisation of Breast Cancer Detection Using Digital X-Ray Technology 2. National Coordinating Centre for the Physics of Mammography. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) grant no. 17321.
147. Altman DG. Prognostic models: a methodological framework and review of models for breast cancer. Cancer Investigation 2009;27:235–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07357900802572110
148. Cush S, Burch A, Whelehan P, Young K. Routine Quality Control Tests for Full Field Digital Mammography Systems. NHSBSP Equipment Report 0702 Version 1. Sheffield: NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; 2007.
149. Strudley CJ, Young KC, Oduko JM, Looney P, Barnard A, Gilbert FJ. Development of a quality control protocol for digital breast tomosynthesis systems in the TOMMY trial. In Maidment DA, Bakic PR, Gavenonis S, editors. Breast Imaging: 11th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Philadelphia, PA: Heidelberg Springer; 2012. pp. 330–7.
150. Dance DR, Strudley CJ, Young KC, Oduko JM, Whelehan PJ, Mungutroy EHL. Comparison of breast doses for digital tomosynthesis estimated from patient exposures and using PMMA breast phantoms. In Maidment ADA, Bakic PR, Gavenonis S, editors. Breast Imaging: 11th International Workshop on Digital Mammography. Philadelphia, PA: Heidelberg Springer; 2012. pp. 316–21.
151. Strudley CJ, Oduko JM, Looney P, Young KC, Gilbert FJ. Physics Tomosynthesis Quality Control Tests for the TOMMY Trial. Poster at Symposium Mammographicum 2012.
152. Strudley CJ, Looney P, Young KC, Gilbert FJ. Technical Performance of the Seven Hologic Dimensions Tomosynthesis Systems used in the TOMMY Trial. Poster at Symposium Mammographicum 2012.
153. Strudley CJ, Oduko JM, Barnard A, Young KC, Gilbert FJ. Radiographer Tomosynthesis Quality Control Tests for the TOMMY Trial. Poster at Symposium Mammographicum 2012.