Beyond the mammography debate: A moderate perspective

Current Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 220-229

  Kaniklidis, Constantine ^a  

^a No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation   (United States)

Author keywords

Benefits; Breast cancer; Controversy; Debate; Harms; Mammography; Screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COST; DECISION MAKING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIGITAL BREAST TOMOSYNTHESIS; HOPELESSNESS; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZATION; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

EID: 84931449789     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17187729     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3747/co.22.2585     Document Type: Article

References (145)

1. Gray JA, Patnick J, Blanks RG. Maximizing benefit and minimizing harm of screening. BMJ 2008;336:480–3.
2. Plecha D, Salem N, Kremer M, et al. Neglecting to screen women between 40 and 49 years old with mammography: what is the impact on treatment morbidity and potential risk reduction? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:282–8.
3. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Liang H, et al. Mammography utilization: patient characteristics and breast cancer stage at diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;201:1057–63.
4. Esserman L, O’Kane ME. Moving beyond the breast cancer screening debate. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2014;23:629–30.
5. Andersson I, Aspegren K, Janzon L, et al. Mammographic screening and mortality from breast cancer: the Malmö mammographic screening trial. BMJ 1988;297:943–8.
6. Coldman A, Phillips N, Wilson C, et al. Pan-Canadian study of mammography screening and mortality from breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju261.
7. Njor SH, Garne JP, Lynge E. Over-diagnosis estimate from the Independent U.K. Panel on Breast Cancer Screening is based on unsuitable data. J Med Screen 2013;20:104–5.
8. Del Vecchio CA, Feng Y, Sokol ES, et al. De-differentiation confers multidrug resistance via noncanonical perk-Nrf2 signaling. PLoS Biol 2014;12:e1001945.
9. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Fagerberg G, et al. Breast screening, prognostic factors and survival—results from the Swedish two county study. Br J Cancer 1991;64:1133–8.
10. Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJ, et al. Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011;130:725–34.
11. Day NE, Williams DR, Khaw KT. Breast cancer screening programmes: the development of a monitoring and evaluation system. Br J Cancer 1989;59:954–8.
12. Swedish Organised Service Screening Evaluation Group. Effect of mammographic service screening on stage at presentation of breast cancers in Sweden. Cancer 2007;109:2205–12.
13. Fracheboud J, Otto SJ, van Dijck JA, Broeders MJ, Verbeek AL, de Koning HJ on behalf of the National Evaluation Team for Breast Cancer Screening (netb). Decreased rates of advanced breast cancer due to mammography screening in the Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2004;91:861–7.
14. Tabár L, Dean PB, Chen TH-H, et al. The impact of mammography screening on the diagnosis and management of early phase breast cancer. In: Francescatti D, Silverstein M, eds. Selected Topics in Breast Surgery. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2013.
15. Duffy SW, Michalopoulos D, Sebuødegård S, Hofvind S. Trends in aggregate cancer incidence rates in relation to screening and possible overdiagnosis: a word of caution. J Med Screen 2014;21:24–9.
16. Jørgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gøtzsche PC. Breast cancer mortality in organised mammography screening in Denmark: comparative study. BMJ 2010;340:c1241.
17. Welch HG, Frankel BA. Likelihood that a woman with screendetected breast cancer has had her “life saved” by that screening. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:2043–6.
18. Haukka J, Byrnes G, Boniol M, Autier P. Trends in breast cancer mortality in Sweden before and after implementation of mammography screening. PLoS One 2011;6:e22422.
19. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:716–26,W236.
20. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:727–37,W237–42.
21. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, et al. Screening for Breast Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review Update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Pub. no. 10-05142-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2009.
22. Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BKS, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:347–60.
23. Gøtzsche PC, Nielsen M. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;:CD001877.
24. Autier P, Boniol M, Gavin A, Vatten LJ. Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of who mortality database. BMJ 2011;343:d4411.
25. Tabár L, Vitak B, Chen TH, et al. Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology 2011;260:658–63.
26. Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S, et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years: evaluation of the Swedish Mammography Screening in Young Women (scry) cohort. Cancer 2011;117:714–22.
27. Narod SA. Reflections on screening mammography and the early detection of breast cancer: a Countercurrents series. Curr Oncol 2014;21:210–14.
28. Jüni P, Zwahlen M. It is time to initiate another breast cancer screening trial. Ann Intern Med 2014;160:864–6.
29. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42–6.
30. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L. Evaluation of periodic breast cancer screening with mammography. Methodology and early observations. JAMA 1966;195:731–8.
31. Shapiro S, Venet W, Strax P, Venet L, Roeser R. Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the Health Insurance Plan Study: a randomized trial with breast cancer screening. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1985;67:65–74.
32. Aron J, Prorok PC. An analysis of the mortality effect in a breast cancer screening study. Int J Epidemiol 1986;15:36–43.
33. Fagerberg G. Experience from randomized controlled breast screening with mammography in Ostergotland county, Sweden: a preliminary report. Recent Results Cancer Res 1984;90:117.
34. Fagerberg G, Baldetorp L, Grontoft O, Lundstrom B, Manson JC, Nordenskjold B. Effects of repeated mammographic screening on breast cancer stage distribution. Results from a randomised study of 92 934 women in a Swedish county. Acta Radiol Oncol 1985;24:465–73.
35. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:305–12.
36. Miller AB, To T, Baines CJ, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study–2: 13-year results of a randomized trial in women aged 50–59 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1490–9.
37. Moss S, Thomas I, Evans A, Thomas B, Johns L on behalf of the Trial Management Group. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: results of screening in the first 10 years. Br J Cancer 2005;92:949–54.
38. Moss S, Waller M, Anderson TJ, Cuckle H on behalf of the Trial Management Group. Randomised controlled trial of mammographic screening in women from age 40: predicted mortality based on surrogate outcome measures. Br J Cancer 2005;92:955–60.
39. Moss SM, Cuckle H, Evans A, Johns L, Waller M, Bobrow L on behalf of the Trial Management Group. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006;368:2053–60.
40. Johns LE, Moss SM on behalf of the Age Trial Management Group. False-positive results in the randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial). Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010;19:2758–64.
41. Johns LE, Moss SM on behalf of the Age Trial Management Group. Randomized controlled trial of mammographic screening from age 40 (“Age” trial): patterns of screening attendance. J Med Screen 2010;17:37–43.
42. Yaffe MJ. Point: Mammography screening—sticking to the science. Curr Oncol 2015;22:174-6.
43. Javitt MC. Section editor’s notebook: breast cancer screening and overdiagnosis unmasked. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:259–61.
44. Kremer ME, Downs-Holmes C, Novak RD, et al. Neglecting to screen women between the ages of 40 and 49 years with mammography: what is the impact on breast cancer diagnosis? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:1218–22.
45. Yen MF, Tabár L, Vitak B, Smith RA, Chen HH, Duffy SW. Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:1746–54.
46. Duffy SW, Agbaje O, Tabár L, et al. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer: estimates of overdiagnosis from two trials of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:258–65.
47. de Roos MA, van der Vegt B, de Vries J, Wesseling J, de Bock GH. Pathological and biological differences between screen-detected and interval ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:2097–104.
48. Matson S, Andersson I, Berglund G, Janzon L, Manjer J. Non-attendance in mammographic screening: a study of intra-urban differences from the city of Malmö, Sweden 1990–1994. Cancer Detect Prev 2001;25:132–7.
49. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Manjer J, Janzon L. Non-attendance in breast cancer screening is associated with unfavourable socio-economic circumstances and advanced carcinoma. Int J Cancer 2004;108:754–60.
50. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Olsen AH, et al. Absolute numbers of lives saved and overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening, from a randomized trial and from the Breast Screening Programme in England. J Med Screen 2010;17:25–30.
51. Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002;95:458–69.
52. Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ 2006;332:689–92.
53. Olsen AH, Agbaje OF, Myles JP, Lynge E, Duffy SW. Overdiagnosis, sojourn time, and sensitivity in the Copenhagen mammography screening program. Breast J 2006;12:338–42.
54. Puliti D, Zappa M, Miccinesi G, Falini P, Crocetti E, Paci E. An estimate of overdiagnosis 15 years after the start of mammographic screening in Florence. Eur J Cancer 2009;45:3166–71.
55. Duffy SW, Parmar D. Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: the importance of length of observation period and lead time. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15:R41.
56. Etzioni R, Xia J, Hubbard R, Weiss NS, Gulati R. A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju315.
57. Beckmann KR, Lynch JW, Hiller JE, et al. A novel case–control design to estimate the extent of over-diagnosis of breast cancer due to organised population-based mammography screening. Int J Cancer 2015;136:1411–21.
58. Duffy SW, Chen THH, Smith RA, Yen AMF, Tabar L. Real and artificial controversies in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Manag 2013;2:519–28.
59. Feig SA. Pitfalls in accurate estimation of overdiagnosis: implications for screening policy and compliance. Breast Cancer Res 2013;15:105.
60. Feig SA. Screening mammography benefit controversies: sorting the evidence. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:455–80.
61. Feig SA. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer and dcis: why do estimates vary? Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly 2014;25:196–201.
62. Paci E on behalf of the euroscreen Working Group. Summary of the evidence of breast cancer service screening outcomes in Europe and first estimate of the benefit and harm balance sheet. J Med Screen 2012;19(suppl 1):5–13.
63. Smith RA. The value of modern mammography screening in the control of breast cancer: understanding the underpinnings of the current debates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23:1139–46.
64. Engel JM, Stankowski-Drengler TJ, Stankowski RV, Liang H, Doi SA, Onitilo AA. All-cause mortality is decreased in women undergoing annual mammography before breast cancer diagnosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2015;204:898–902.
65. Davidson AS, Liao X, Magee BD. Attitudes of women in their forties toward the 2009 uspstf mammogram guidelines: a randomized trial on the effects of media exposure. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;205:30.e1–7.
66. Welch HG, Passow HJ. Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:448–54.
67. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ 2000;320:1635–40.
68. Waller J, Douglas E, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in the U.K. breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002703.
69. Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, et al. Women’s views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ 2013;346:f158.
70. Forbes LJ, Ramirez AJ on behalf of the Expert Group on Information About Breast Screening. Offering informed choice about breast screening. J Med Screen 2014;21:194–200.
71. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Fowler FJ Jr, Welch HG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA 2004;291:71–8.
72. Rosenbaum L. Invisible risks, emotional choices—mammography and medical decision making. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1549–52.
73. Allen JD, Bluethmann SM, Sheets M, et al. Women’s responses to changes in U.S. Preventive Task Force’s mammography screening guidelines: results of focus groups with ethnically diverse women. BMC Public Health 2013;13:1169.
74. Thomson MD, Siminoff LA. Perspectives on mammography after receipt of secondary screening owing to a false positive. Womens Health Issues 2015;25:128–33.
75. Vyas A, Madhavan S, Sambamoorthi U. Association between persistence with mammography screening and stage at diagnosis among elderly women diagnosed with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014;148:645–54.
76. Tan A, Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Potential overuse of screening mammography and its association with access to primary care. Med Care 2014;52:490–5.
77. Smith RA, Brooks D, Cokkinides V, Saslow D, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin 2013;63:88–105.
78. Waller J, Whitaker KL, Winstanley K, Power E, Wardle J. A survey study of women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain. Br J Cancer 2014;111:1831–5.
79. Coldman A, Phillips N. Incidence of breast cancer and estimates of overdiagnosis after the initiation of a population-based mammography screening program. CMAJ 2013;185:E492–8.
80. Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, et al. Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid. BMJ Open 2014;4:e006016.
81. Squiers LB, Holden DJ, Dolina SE, Kim AE, Bann CM, Renaud JM. The public’s response to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’s 2009 recommendations on mammography screening. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:497–504.
82. AlKhalili R, Shukla PA, Patel RH, Sanghvi S, Hubbi B. Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to mammography for breast cancer screening. Acad Radiol 2015;22:290–5.
83. Hansberry DR, John A, John E, Agarwal N, Gonzales SF, Baker SR. A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.Org. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:566–75.
84. Biesecker BB, Schwartz MD, Marteau TM. Enhancing informed choice to undergo health screening: a systematic review. Am J Health Behav 2013;37:351–9.
85. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;1:CD001431.
86. Edwards AG, Naik G, Ahmed H, et al. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;2:CD001865.
87. Public Health Agency of Canada (phac). Information on Mammography for Women Aged 40 and Older: A Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Screening in Canada. Ottawa, ON: phac; 2009. [Available for download at: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/mammography-mammographie-eng.php; cited 16 January 2015]
88. BC Cancer Agency (bcca). Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid [Web resource]. Vancouver, BC: bcca; n.d. [Available at: http://decisionaid.screeningbc.ca; cited 16 January 2015]
89. Coldman AJ, Phillips N, Wilson C, Sam J. Information for physicians discussing breast cancer screening with patients. BC Med J 2013;55:420–8.
90. University of Sydney, Screening and Test Evaluation Program (step). Should I Continue Having Mammograms to Screen for Breast Cancer? Sydney, Australia: step; 2003. [Available online at: http://www.psych.usyd.edu.au/cemped/docs/Mammogram_DecisionAid.pdf; cited 20 December 2014]
91. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, McGeechan K, Howard K, Houssami N. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2039–46.
92. Corbelli J, Borrero S, Bonnema R, et al. Physician adherence to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force mammography guidelines. Womens Health Issues 2014;24:e313–19.
93. Pace LE, He Y, Keating NL. Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer 2013;119:2518–23.
94. Yao N, Bradley CJ, Miranda PY. Mammography use after the 2009 debate. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:4023–4.
95. Yao N, Hillemeier M. Disparities in mammography rate among immigrant and native-born women in the U.S.: progress and challenges. J Immigr Minor Health 2014;16:613–21.
96. Frank E, Segura C. Health practices of Canadian physicians. Can Fam Physician 2009;55:810–11.e7.
97. Burda BU, Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Smith ME. Quality varies across clinical practice guidelines for mammography screening in women aged 40–49 years as assessed by agree and amstar instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:968–76.
98. Brawley O, Byers T, Chen A, et al. New American Cancer Society process for creating trustworthy cancer screening guidelines. JAMA 2011;306:2495–9.
99. Hof fman RM, Lewis CL, Pignone MP, et al. Decisionmaking processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the decisions survey. Med Decis Making 2010;30(suppl):53S–64S.
100. Hoffman RM, Elmore JG, Fairfield KM, Gerstein BS, Levin CA, Pignone MP. Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey. Am J Prev Med 2014;47:251–9.
101. Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2014;175:274–86.
102. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:966–72.
103. Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:799–803.
104. Rothman RL, Montori VM, Cherrington A, Pignone MP. Perspective: the role of numeracy in health care. J Health Commun 2008;13:583–95.
105. Jørgensen KJ, Brodersen J, Hartling OJ, Nielsen M, Gøtzsche PC. Informed choice requires information about both benefits and harms. J Med Ethics 2009;35:268–9.
106. Rasmussen K, Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC. Citations of scientific results and conflicts of interest: the case of mammography screening. Evid Based Med 2013;18:83–9.
107. Heleno B, Thomsen MF, Rodrigues DS, Jørgensen KJ, Brodersen J. Quantification of harms in cancer screening trials: literature review. BMJ 2013;347:f5334.
108. Saitz R. “We do not see the lens through which we look”: screening mammography evidence and non-financial conflicts of interest. Evid Based Med 2013;18:81–2.
109. Norris SL, Burda BU, Holmer HK, et al. Author’s specialty and conflicts of interest contribute to conflicting guidelines for screening mammography. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:725–33.
110. Kuhl CK. Why do purely intraductal cancers enhance on breast mr images? Radiology 2009;253:281–3.
111. Morris EA. Rethinking breast cancer screening: ultra fast breast magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2281–3.
112. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S, et al. Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the eva trial. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1450–7.
113. Morris EA. Diagnostic breast mr imaging: current status and future directions. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2010;18:57–74.
114. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Strobel K, Schild HH, Hilgers RD, Bieling HB. Abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging (mri): first postcontrast subtracted images and maximumintensity projection—a novel approach to breast cancer screening with mri. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:2304–10.
115. Mango VL, Morris EA, David Dershaw D, et al. Abbreviated protocol for breast mri: are multiple sequences needed for cancer detection? Eur J Radiol 2015;84:65–70.
116. Mann RM, Mus RD, van Zelst J, Geppert C, Karssemeijer N, Platel B. A novel approach to contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging for screening: high-resolution ultrafast dynamic imaging. Invest Radiol 2014;49:579–85.
117. Durand MA, Haas BM, Yao X, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 2015;274:85–92.
118. Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, et al. Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 2015;274:772–80.
119. Seidenwurm D, Rosenberg R. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis and digital mammography. JAMA 2014;312:1695
120. 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;271:664–71.
121. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013;267:47–56.
122. 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;23:2061–71.
123. 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;50:1799–807.
124. Lourenco AP, Barry-Brooks M, Baird G, Tuttle A, Mainiero MB. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 2014;274:337–42.
125. Haas BM, Kalra V, Geisel J, Raghu M, Durand M, Philpotts LE. Comparison of tomosynthesis plus digital mammography and digital mammography alone for breast cancer screening. Radiology 2013;269:694–700.
126. Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, 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.
127. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, 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.
128. 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. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:687–93.
129. 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:dju316.
130. Osés JM. Tomosynthesis: a major advance that could replace mammography in screening [Spanish, editorial]. Rev Senol Patol Mamar 2015;28:1–2.
131. Hologic. P080003/S001 Hologic Selenia Dimensions C-View Software Module. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration; 2014. [Available online at U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Radiological Devices Panel meeting materials: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/RadiologicalDevicesPanel/UCM324864.pdf; cited 16 January 2015]
132. Skaane P, Bandos A, Eben E, 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;271:655–63.
133. Zuckerman S, Margolies L, Cohen S, et al. Radiation dose in the 2D and 3D components of digital breast tomosynthesis. Research (Lambertville) 2014;1:998.
134. Gur D, Zuley ML, Anello MI, 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.
135. Garayoa J, Hernandez-Giron I, Castillo M, Valverde J, Chevalier M. Digital breast tomosynthesis: image quality and dose saving of the synthesized image. In: Fujita H, Hara T, Muramatsu C, eds. Breast Imaging. Proceedings of the 12th International Workshop on Breast Imaging 2014; Gifu City, Japan; 29 June–2 July 2014. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2014: 150–7.
136. Kopans DB. Digital breast tomosynthesis from concept to clinical care. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:299–308.
137. Kopans DB. A new era in mammography screening. Radiology 2014;271:629–31.
138. Geisel JL, Philpotts LE. Breast tomosynthesis: a replacement or an adjunct to conventional diagnostic mammography? Curr Breast Cancer Rep 2014;6:132–7.
139. Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, et al. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and falsepositive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 2014;50:1232–8.
140. Caumo F, Bernardi D, Ciatto 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.
141. Yaffe MJ. Research in digital mammography and tomosynthesis at the University of Toronto. Radiol Phys Technol 2014;7:191–202.
142. Yaffe MJ, Mainprize JG. Digital tomosynthesis: technique. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52:489–97.
143. American College of Radiology (acr). CMS Establishes Breast Tomosynthesis Values in 2015 MPFS Final Rule [online news article]. Reston, VA: acr; 2014. [Available at: http://www.acr.org/News-Publications/News/News-Articles/2014/Economics/20141105-CMS-Establishes-Values-for-Breast-Tomosynthesis-in-2015-Final-Rule; cited 16 January 2015]
144. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (uspstf). Draft Recommendation Statement. Breast Cancer: Screening [Web page]. Rockville, MD: uspstf; 2015. [Available at: http://www.uspreventiveser vicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementDraft/breast-cancer-screening1(link will become obsolete when the finalized version is posted); cited 28 April 2015]
145. Adler FS, Adler HM. Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal. New York, NY: McGraw–Hill; 1975.