1. Niklason, LT, Christian, BT, Niklason, LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology 1997; 205: 399–406.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI2. Helvie, MA. Digital mammography imaging: Breast tomosynthesis and advanced applications. Radiol Clin North Am 2010; 48: 917–929.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI3. Conant EF, Barlow WE, Herschorn SD, 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.
Google Scholar4. Pattacini, P, Nitrosi, A, Rossi, PG, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening: the Reggio Emilia tomosynthesis randomized trial. Radiology 2018; 288: 375–385.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Hofvind, S, Hovda, T, Holen, ÅS, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis and synthetic 2D mammography versus digital mammography: evaluation in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2018; 287: 787–794.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Aujero, MP, Gavenonis, SC, Benjamin, R, et al. Performance of synthesized two-dimensional mammography combined with tomosynthesis in a large screening population. Radiology 2017; 283: 70–76.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Caumo, F, Zorzi, M, 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 2018; 287: 37–46.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Bahl, M, Gaffney, S, McCarthy, AM, et al. Breast cancer characteristics associated with 2D digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis for screening-detected and interval cancers. Radiology 2018; 287: 49–57.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. 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: 501–509.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Giess, CS, Pourjabbar, S, Ip, IK, et al. Comparing diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography in a hybrid screening environment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017; 209: 929–934.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. 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: 109–116.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline12. Lång, K, Andersson, I, Rosso, A, et al. 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 2016; 26: 184–190.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Giampietro, RR, Cabral, MVG, Lima, SAM, et al. Accuracy and effectiveness of mammography versus mammography and tomosynthesis for population-based breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 1–10.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline14. Phi, XA, Tagliafico, A, Houssami, N, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts – a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2018; 18: 380.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline15. Poplack, SP, Patel, AK, Salter, A, et al. The impact of adjunctive tomosynthesis on screening mammography outcomes in two widely diverse radiology practices. Breast J 2021; 27: 13–20.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Alberta Innovates. ARECCI Ethics Guideline Tool. Alberta: Alberta Innovates, 2017.
Google Scholar17. Breast Cancer Screening Clinical Practice guideline . Vol. 2017, See http://www.topalbertadoctors.org/download/243/breast_cancer_guideline.pdf?_20170830202847 (2013, accessed 1 July 2021).
Google Scholar18. Durand, MA, Haas, BM, Yao, X, et al. Early clinical experience with digital breast tomosynthesis for screening mammography. Radiology 2015; 274: 85–92.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Lourenco, AP, Barry-Brooks, M, Baird, GL, Tuttle, A, et al. Changes in recall type and patient treatment following implementation of screening digital breast tomosynthesis. Radiology 2015; 274: 337–342.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. McDonald, ES, McCarthy, AM, Akhtar, AL, et al. Baseline screening mammography: performance of full-field digital mammography versus digital breast tomosynthesis. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 205: 1143–1148.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline21. Skaane, P, Bandos, AI, Niklason, LT, et al. Digital mammography versus digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening: the Oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Radiology 2019; 291: 23–30.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline22. Gilbert, F, Tucker, L, Gillan, M, 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. Heal Technol Assess 2015; 19, http://journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hta/hta19040
Google Scholar23. Bernal, JL, Cummins, S, Gasparrini, A. Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: a tutorial. Int J Epidemiol 2017; 46: 348–355.
Google Scholar | Medline