This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A et al.: Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209–249.SungHFerlayJSiegelRLLaversanneMSoerjomataramIJemalAet alGlobal cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countriesCA Cancer J Clin20217120924910.3322/caac.2166033538338Search in Google Scholar
Niell BL, Freer PE, Weinfurtner RJ, Arleo EK, Drukteinis JS: Screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2017; 55: 1145–1162.NiellBLFreerPEWeinfurtnerRJArleoEKDrukteinisJSScreening for breast cancerRadiol Clin North Am2017551145116210.1016/j.rcl.2017.06.00428991557Search in Google Scholar
Duffy SW, Tabár L, Chen HH, Holmqvist M, Yen M-F, Abdsalah S et al.: The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002; 95: 458–469.DuffySWTabárLChenHHHolmqvistMYenM-FAbdsalahSet alThe impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish countiesCancer20029545846910.1002/cncr.1076512209737Search in Google Scholar
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 Intern Med 2003; 138: 168–175.CarneyPAMigliorettiDLYankaskasBCKerlikowskeKRosenbergRRutterCMet alIndividual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammographyAnn Intern Med200313816817510.7326/0003-4819-138-3-200302040-0000812558355Search in Google Scholar
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: 227–236.BoydNFGuoHMartinLJSunLStoneJFishellEet alMammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancerN Engl J Med200735622723610.1056/NEJMoa06279017229950Search in Google Scholar
Harvey JA, Bovbjerg VE: Quantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancer. Radiology 2004; 230: 29–41.HarveyJABovbjergVEQuantitative assessment of mammographic breast density: relationship with breast cancerRadiology2004230294110.1148/radiol.230102087014617762Search in Google Scholar
Freer PE: Mammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screening. Radiographics 2015; 35: 302–315.FreerPEMammographic breast density: impact on breast cancer risk and implications for screeningRadiographics20153530231510.1148/rg.35214010625763718Search in Google Scholar
Carmona-Sanchez E, Cuadros Lopez JL, Cuadros Celorrio AM, Perez-Roncero G, Gonzalez Ramirez AR, Fernandez Alonso AM: Assessment of mammographic density in postmenopausal women during long term hormone replacement therapy. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013; 29: 1067–1070.Carmona-SanchezECuadrosLopez JLCuadrosCelorrio AMPerez-RonceroGGonzalezRamirez ARFernandezAlonso AMAssessment of mammographic density in postmenopausal women during long term hormone replacement therapyGynecol Endocrinol2013291067107010.3109/09513590.2013.83183124004297Search in Google Scholar
Yuan W-H, Hsu H-C, Chen Y-Y, Wu C-H: Supplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer 2020; 123: 673–688.YuanW-HHsuH-CChenY-YWuC-HSupplemental breast cancer-screening ultrasonography in women with dense breasts: a systematic review and meta-analysisBr J Cancer202012367368810.1038/s41416-020-0928-1743477732528118Search in Google Scholar
Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M et al.: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299: 2151–2163.BergWABlumeJDCormackJBMendelsonEBLehrerDBöhm-VélezMet alCombined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancerJAMA20082992151216310.1001/jama.299.18.2151271868818477782Search in Google Scholar
Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A: Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res 2001; 3: 55–60.MalurSWurdingerSMoritzAMichelsWSchneiderAComparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammographyBreast Cancer Res20013556010.1186/bcr2711390011250746Search in Google Scholar
Buchanan CL, Morris EA, Dorn PL, Borgen PI, Van Zee KJ: Utility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2005; 12: 1045–1053.BuchananCLMorrisEADornPLBorgenPIVanZee KJUtility of breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult primary breast cancerAnn Surg Oncol2005121045105310.1245/ASO.2005.03.52016244803Search in Google Scholar
Argus A, Mahoney MC:Indications for breast MRI: case-based review. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: WS1–WS14.ArgusAMahoneyMCIndications for breast MRI: case-based reviewAm J Roentgenol2011196WS1–WS1410.2214/AJR.09.721321343536Search in Google Scholar
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: 976–981.MichellMJIqbalAWasanRKEvansDRPeacockCLawinskiCPet alA comparison of the accuracy of film-screen mammography, full-field digital mammography, and digital breast tomosynthesisClin Radiol20126797698110.1016/j.crad.2012.03.00922625656Search in Google Scholar
Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Kogel CA, Nagy HM: Digital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189: 616–623.PoplackSPTostesonTDKogelCANagyHMDigital breast tomosynthesis: initial experience in 98 women with abnormal digital screening mammographyAm J Roentgenol200718961662310.2214/AJR.07.223117715109Search in Google Scholar
Tagliafico A, Astengo D, Cavagnetto F, Rosasco R, Rescinito G, Monetti F et al. One-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol 2012; 22: 539–544.TagliaficoAAstengoDCavagnettoFRosascoRRescinitoGMonettiFet alOne-to-one comparison between digital spot compression view and digital breast tomosynthesisEur Radiol20122253954410.1007/s00330-011-2305-121987214Search in Google Scholar
Conant E, Barlow W, Herschorn SD, Weaver DL, Beaber EF, Tosteson ANA et al.: Association of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast density. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5: 635–642.ConantEBarlowWHerschornSDWeaverDLBeaberEFTostesonANAet alAssociation of digital breast tomosynthesis vs digital mammography with cancer detection and recall rates by age and breast densityJAMA Oncol2019563564210.1001/jamaoncol.2018.7078651225730816931Search in Google Scholar
Förnvik 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: 240–247.FörnvikDZackrissonSLjungbergOSvahnTTimbergPTingbergAet alBreast tomosynthesis: accuracy of tumor measurement compared with digital mammography and ultrasonographyActa Radiol20105124024710.3109/0284185090352444720105090Search in Google Scholar
Lewin JM, Isaacs PK, Vance V, Larke FJ: Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibility. Radiology 2003; 229: 261–268.LewinJMIsaacsPKVanceVLarkeFJDual-energy contrast-enhanced digital subtraction mammography: feasibilityRadiology200322926126810.1148/radiol.229102127612888621Search in Google Scholar
Dromain C, Balleyguier C, Muller S, Mathieu MC, Rochard F, Opolon P et al.: Evaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 187: W528–W537.DromainCBalleyguierCMullerSMathieuMCRochardFOpolonPet alEvaluation of tumor angiogenesis of breast carcinoma using contrast-enhanced digital mammographyAm J Roentgenol2006187W528W53710.2214/AJR.05.194417056886Search in Google Scholar
Kim SH, Kim HH, Moon WK: Automated breast ultrasound screening for dense breasts. Korean J Radiol 2020; 21: 15–24.KimSHKimHHMoonWKAutomated breast ultrasound screening for dense breastsKorean J Radiol202021152410.3348/kjr.2019.0176696030731920025Search in Google Scholar
Hendriks GAGM, Holländer B, Menssen J, Milkowski A, Hansen HHG, De Korte CL: Automated 3D ultrasound elastography of the breast: a phantom validation study. Phys Med Biol 2016; 61: 2665–2679.HendriksGAGMHolländerBMenssenJMilkowskiAHansenHHGDeKorte CLAutomated 3D ultrasound elastography of the breast: a phantom validation studyPhys Med Biol2016612665267910.1088/0031-9155/61/7/266526976196Search in Google Scholar
Wang Y, Nasief HG, Kohn S, Milkowski A, Clary T, Barnes S et al.: Three-dimensional ultrasound elasticity imaging on an automated breast volume scanning system. Ultrason Imaging 2017; 39: 369–392.WangYNasiefHGKohnSMilkowskiAClaryTBarnesSet alThree-dimensional ultrasound elasticity imaging on an automated breast volume scanning systemUltrason Imaging20173936939210.1177/0161734617712238564321828585511Search in Google Scholar
van Zelst JCM, Mann RM: Automated three-dimensional breast US for screening: technique, artifacts, and lesion characterization. Radiographics 2018; 38: 663–683.vanZelst JCMMannRMAutomated three-dimensional breast US for screening: technique, artifacts, and lesion characterizationRadiographics20183866368310.1148/rg.201817016229624482Search in Google Scholar
Brem RF, Tabár L, Duffy SW, Inciardi MF, Guingrich JA, Hashimoto BE et al.: Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology 2015; 274: 663–673.BremRFTabárLDuffySWInciardiMFGuingrichJAHashimotoBEet alAssessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight StudyRadiology201527466367310.1148/radiol.1413283225329763Search in Google Scholar
Wilczek B, Wilczek HE, Rasouliyan L, Leifland K: Adding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening program. Eur J Radiol 2016; 85: 1554–1563.WilczekBWilczekHERasouliyanLLeiflandKAdding 3D automated breast ultrasound to mammography screening in women with heterogeneously and extremely dense breasts: report from a hospital-based, high-volume, single-center breast cancer screening programEur J Radiol2016851554156310.1016/j.ejrad.2016.06.00427501888Search in Google Scholar
Vourtsis A, Kachulis A: The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women. Eur Radiol 2018; 28: 592–601.VourtsisAKachulisAThe performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 womenEur Radiol20182859260110.1007/s00330-017-5011-928828640Search in Google Scholar
Depretto C, Liguori A, Primolevo A, Di Cosimo S, Cartia F, Ferranti C et al.: Automated breast ultrasound compared to hand-held ultrasound in surveillance after breast-conserving surgery. Tumori 2021; 107: 132–138.DeprettoCLiguoriAPrimolevoADiCosimo SCartiaFFerrantiCet alAutomated breast ultrasound compared to hand-held ultrasound in surveillance after breast-conserving surgeryTumori202110713213810.1177/030089162093027832552398Search in Google Scholar
Wang H-Y, Jiang Y-X, Zhu Q-L, Zhang J, Dai Q, Liu H et al.: Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3190–3200.WangH-YJiangY-XZhuQ-LZhangJDaiQLiuHet alDifferentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: a comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinationsEur J Radiol2012813190320010.1016/j.ejrad.2012.01.03422386134Search in Google Scholar
Jeh SK, Kim SH, Choi JJ, Jung SS, Choe BJ, Park S et al.: Comparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesions. Acta Radiol 2016; 57: 162–169.JehSKKimSHChoiJJJungSSChoeBJParkSet alComparison of automated breast ultrasonography to handheld ultrasonography in detecting and diagnosing breast lesionsActa Radiol20165716216910.1177/028418511557487225766727Search in Google Scholar
Hellgren R, Dickman P, Leifland K, Saracco A, Hall P, Celebioglu F: Comparison of handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound in women recalled after mammography screening. Acta Radiol 2017, 58, 515–520.HellgrenRDickmanPLeiflandKSaraccoAHallPCelebiogluFComparison of handheld ultrasound and automated breast ultrasound in women recalled after mammography screeningActa Radiol20175851552010.1177/028418511666542127565633Search in Google Scholar
Chaoli X , Shuping W , Yingdong X , Xiaoxiang G , Bin Y: Three-dimensional assessment of automated breast volume scanner compared with handheld ultrasound in pre-operative breast invasive ductal carcinomas: a pilot study of 51 cases. Ultrasound Med Biol 2016; 42: 2089–2096.ChaoliXShupingWYingdongXXiaoxiangGBinYThree-dimensional assessment of automated breast volume scanner compared with handheld ultrasound in pre-operative breast invasive ductal carcinomas: a pilot study of 51 casesUltrasound Med Biol2016422089209610.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2016.05.00727339762Search in Google Scholar
