Clinical References

Homepage

1. Skaane P. et. al. Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2013 Jan 7 [Epub ahead of print].

2. Philpotts L, Raghu M, Durand M, et al. Initial Experience With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening Mammography. Presented at American Roentgen Ray Society Annual Meeting.  May 2012.

3. Haas B et al. Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Conventional Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2012.

About Selenia Dimensions
1.Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et. al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jan 22 [Epub ahead of print].

Screening 

1. Skaane P. et. al. Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2013 Jan 7 [Epub ahead of print].

2. Philpotts L, Raghu M, Durand M, et al. Initial Experience With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening Mammography. Presented at American Roentgen Ray Society Annual Meeting.  May 2012.

3. Haas B et al. Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Conventional Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2012.

4. Zuley M, Bandos A, Ganott M, et. al.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Supplemental Diagnostic Mammographic Views for Evaluation of Noncalcified Breast Lesions.  Radiology. 2013 Jan; 266(1):89-95. Epub 2012 Nov 9.

Diagnostic

1. Zuley M, Sumkin J, Ganott M, et. al. Digital breast tomosynthesis vs. supplemental diagnostic mammography images for the evaluation of non-calcified breast lesions. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2011.

2.Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et. al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jan 22 [Epub ahead of print].

Implementing in Practice 

1. Skaane P. et. al. Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2013 Jan 7 [Epub ahead of print].

Clinical FAQs

1.  FDA PMA submission P080003

2. Zuley M, Sumkin J, Ganott M, et. al. Digital breast tomosynthesis vs. supplemental diagnostic mammography images for the evaluation of non-calcified breast lesions. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2011. 

3. Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, et. al. Reading time of FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2011

4. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et. al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening.   Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jan 22 [Epub ahead of print].

5. Rafferty EA, Niklason L. FFDM versus FFDM with tomosynthesis for women with radiologically dense breasts: an enriched retrospective reader study. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2011.

6. Rafferty EA, Niklason L, Smith A. Comparison of FFDM with breast tomosynthesis to FFDM alone: performance in fatty and dense breasts. Tomosynthesis Imaging Symposium, Duke University, 2009. 7ICPME. 2012. http://courses.icpme.us/class_learn?course=221 March 22, 2012. 

7. The American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666 study

8. Philpotts L, Raghu M, Durand M, et al. Initial Experience With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening Mammography. Presented at the ARRS 2012, Scientific Session 22 - Breast Imaging: Screening/Emerging Technologies.

 Business Benefits

1. Skaane P. et. al. Comparison of Digital Mammography Alone and Digital Mammography Plus Tomosynthesis in a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2013 Jan 7 [Epub ahead of print].

2. Zuley M, Bandos A, Ganott M, et. al. Digital Breast Tomosynthesis versus Supplemental Diagnostic Mammographic Views for Evaluation of Noncalcified Breast Lesions. Radiology. 2013 Jan; 266 (1):89-95. Epub Nov 9. 

3. Philpotts L, Raghu M, Durand M, et. al. Initial Experience With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis in Screening Mammography. Presented at the ARRS 2012, Scientific Session 22 - Breast Imaging: Screening/Emerging Technologies.

4. Haas B et al. Performance of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared to Conventional Digital Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2012.

7. Kalra V. et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2012

Resource Center > Videos

1. Bernardi D, Ciatto S, Pellegrini M, et. al. Prospective study of breast tomosynthesis as a triage to assessment in screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jan 22 [Epub ahead of print].

2. Skaane P, Gullien R, Eben EB, et. al. Reading time of FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, Il, 2011.

Referring Physician

1. Skaane P, Guillen R, Eben EB, et al. Reading time of FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, IL, 2011

2. Rafferty E, Niklasen L, Halpern E, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined full-field digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis versus full-field digital mammography alone: results of a multi-center multi-reader trial. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, IL, 2007.

3. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology. 2006;241(1):55-66.

4. Philpotts L, Raghu M, Durand M, et. al. Initial experience with digital breast tomosynthesis in screening mammography. ARRS 2012, Scientific Session 22 - Breast Imaging: Screening/Emerging Technologies.

5. Rafferty EA, Niklason L, Smith A. Comparison of FFDM with breast tomosynthesis to FFDM alone: performance in fatty and dense breasts. Tomosynthesis Imaging Symposium, Duke University, 2009.

6. Gur D, Sumkin J, Zuley R, et al. Recall rate reduction with tomosynthesis during baseline examinations—preliminary assessment from a prospective screening trial. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, IL, 2011.

7. Rafferty EA, Niklason L. FFDM vs FFDM with tomosynthesis for women with radiologically dense breasts: an enriched retrospective reader study. Radiological Society of North America annual meeting. Chicago, IL, 2011.

print email
Hologic - Contact Us

contact us

Hologic N.V.
Leuvensesteenweg 250A
1800 Vilvoorde
Belgium
Tel: +32.2.711.4680