AA.VV. How common is breast cancer? Breast cancer statistics. America Cancer Society. 2020 .  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-cancer.html

Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen THH, Yen AMF, Cohen A, Tot T, Chiu SYH, Chen SLS, Fann JCY, Rosell J, Fohlin H, Smith RA, Duffy SW. Swedish two-country trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades. Radiology. 2011;260(3):658–63. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110469.

Article  Google Scholar 

Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Overdiagnosis in publicly organised mammography screening programmes: systematic review of incidence trends. BMJ. 2009;339:b2587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2587.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S, Hyde C. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(13):1–170. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17130.

Article  Google Scholar 

Tosteson ANA, Fryback DG, Hammond CS, Hanna LG, Grove MR, Brown M, Wang Q, Lindfors K, Pisano ED. Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):954–61.

Article  Google Scholar 

Pharoah PDP, Sewell B, Fitzsimmons D, Bennet HS, Pashayan N. Cost effectiveness of the NHS breast screening programme: life table model. BMJ. 2013;346:f2618. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2618.

Article  Google Scholar 

Elmore JG, Jackson SL, Abraham L, Miglioretti DL, Carney PA, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Onega T, Rosenberg RD, Sickles EA, Buist DSM. Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and associated with accuracy. Radiology. 2009;253(3):641–51. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2533082308.

Article  Google Scholar 

Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham L, Brenner RJ, Carney PA, Bowles EJA, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(24):1854-1863e63. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm238.

Article  Google Scholar 

Sechopoulos I. A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process. Med Phys. 2013;40(1):014301. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4770279.

Article  Google Scholar 

Sarno A, Mettivier G, Russo P. Dedicated breast computed tomography. Basic Aspects Med Phys. 2015;42:2786–804. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4919441.

Article  Google Scholar 

Zhu Y, O’Connell AM, Ma Y, Liu A, Li H, Zhang Y, et al. Dedicated breast CT: state of the art – Part I. Historical evolution and technical aspects. Eur Radiol. 2022;32:1579–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08179-z.

Article  Google Scholar 

Zhu Y, O’Connell AM, Ma Y, Liu A, Li H, Zhang Y, et al. Dedicated breast CT: state of the art – Part II. Clinical application and future outlook. Eur Radiol. 2022;32:2286–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08178-0.

Article  Google Scholar 

Aase HS, Holen AS, Pedersen K, Houssami N, Haldorsen IS, Sebuodegard S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography in population-based screening in Bergen: interim analysis of performance indicators from the To-Be trial. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1175–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5690-x.

Article  Google Scholar 

Clauser P, Nagl G, Helbich TH, Pinker-Domenig K, Weber M, Kapetas P, Bernathova M, Baltzer PA. Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis with a wide scan angle compared to full-field digital mammography for the detection and characterization of microcalcifications. Eur J Radiol. 2016;85:2161–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.10.004.

Article  Google Scholar 

Tagliafico AS, Calabrese M, Bignotti B, Signori A, Fisci E, Rossi F, Valdora F, Houssami N. Accuracy and reading time for six strategies using digital breast tomosynthesis in women withmammographically negative dense breasts. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(12):5179–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4918-5.

Article  Google Scholar 

Clauser P, Baltzer PAT, Kapetas P, Woitek R, Wweber M, Leone F, et al. One view or two views for wide-angle tomosynthesis with synthetic mammography in the assessment setting? Eur Radiol. 2022;32:661–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08079-2.

Article  Google Scholar 

Houssami N, Lockie D, Clemson M, Pridmore V, Taylor D, Marr G, Evans J, Macaskill P. Pilot trial of digital breast tomosynthesis (3D mammography) for population-basedscreening in breastscreen Victoria. Med J Aust. 2019;211:357–62. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50320.

Article  Google Scholar 

Chae EY, Kim HH, Jeong JW, Chae SH, Lee S, Choi YW. Decrease in interpretation time for both novice and experienced readers using a concurrent computer-aided detection system for digital breast tomosynthesis. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(5):2518–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5886-0.

Article  Google Scholar 

Balleyguier C, Arfi-Rouche J, Levy L, Toubiana PR, Cohen-Scali F, Toledano AY, Boyer B. Improving digital breast tomosynthesis reading time: a pilot multi-center, multi-case study using concurrent computer-aided detection (CAD). Eur J Radiol. 2017;97:83–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.10.014.

Article  Google Scholar 

Benedikt RA, Boatsman JE, Swann CA, Kirkpatrick AD, Toledano AY. Concurrent computer-aided detection improves reading time of digital breast tomosynthesis and maintains interpretaions performance in a multireader multicase study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018;210(3):685–94. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18185.

Article  Google Scholar 

Samala RK, Chan HP, Hadjiiski LM, Helvie MA, Wei J, Cha KH. Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography. Med Phys. 2016;43:6654–66. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4967345.

Article  Google Scholar 

Fotin SV, Yin Y, Haldankar H, Hoffmeister JW, Periaswamy S. 2016. Detection of soft tissue densities from digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of conventional and deep learning approaches. In: SPIE medical imaging 2016, San Diego, California, United States, 97850X:1–6.

Kim DH, Kim ST, Ro YM. Latent feature representation with 3-D multi-view deep convolutional neural network for bilateral analysis in digital breast tomosynthesis. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing (ICASSP), Shanghai, China. 2020; 927–931.

Kim DH, Kim ST, Chang JM, Ro YM. Latent feature representation with depth directional long-term recurrent learning for breast masses in digital breast tomosynthesis. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62:1009–31. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/aa504e.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ricciardi R, Mettivier G, Staffa M, Sarno A, Acampora G, Minelli S, Santoro A, Antignani E, Orientale A, Pilotti IAM, Santangelo V, D’Andria P, Russo P. A deep learning classifier for digital breast tomosynthesis. Physica Med. 2021;83:194–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2021.03.021.

Article  Google Scholar 

Buda M, Saha A, Walsh R, Ghate S, Li N, Swiçicki A, Lo JY, Mazurowski MA. Detection of masses and architectural distortions in digital breast tomosynthesis: a publicly available dataset of 5060 patients and a deep learning model. arXiv:2011.07995v4. 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.07995

Buda M, Ashiribani S, Walsh R, Gate S, Li N, Swiecicki A, Lo JY, Mazurowski MA. A data set and deep learning algorithm for the detection of masses and architectural distorsions in digital breast tomisynthesis images. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(8):e2119100. https://doi.org/10.1001/jemanetworkopen.2021.19100.

Article  Google Scholar 

Esposito D, Paternò G, Ricciardi R, Sarno A, Russo P, Mettivier G. A pre-processing tool to increase performance of deep learning-based CAD in digital breast Tomosynthesis. Health Technol. 2024;14:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-023-00804-9.

Article  Google Scholar 

Li X, Jiao H, Wang Y. Edge detection algorithm of cancer image based on deep learning. Bioengineered. 2020;11:693–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2020.1778913.

Article  Google Scholar 

Santos CFGD, Papa JP. Avoiding overfitting: a survey on regularization methods for convolutional neural networks. ACM Comput Surv. 2022;54:1–213. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510413.

Article  Google Scholar 

Andreozzi E, Fratini A, Esposito D, Cesarelli M, Bifulco P. Toward a priori noise characterization for real-time edge-aware denoising in fluoroscopic devices. Biomed Eng Online. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12938-021-00874-8. 20,.

Article  Google Scholar 

Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. J Mach Learn Res. 2014;15(1):1929–58. https://doi.org/10.5555/2627435.2670313.

Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Murphy KP. Probabilistic Machine Learning: An Introduction, MIT press 2022.

Selvaraju RR, Cogswell M, Das A, Vedantam R, Parikh D, Batra D. Grad-CAM: visual explanations from deep networks via Gradient-based localization. Proc IEEE Int Conf Comput Vis (ICCV). 2017;618–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.74.

Grandini M, Bagli E, Visani G. Metrics for multi-class classification: an overview. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.05756. 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.05756

Kaiming H, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2016;770–778. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1512.03385

Simonyan K, Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. ArXiv Preprint arXiv: 1409 1556. 2014. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.1556.

Article  Google Scholar 

Redmon J, Farhadi A. Yolov3: An incremental improvement. In: arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.02767. 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.02767

Zackrisson S, Lång K, Rosso A, Johnson K, Dustler M, Fornvik D, Fornvik h, Sartor H, Timberg P, Tingberg A, Andersson I. One-view breast tomosynthesis versus two-view mammography in the Malmö breast tomosynthesis screening trial (MBTST): a prospective, population-based, diagnostic accuracy study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:1493–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30521-7.

Article  Google Scholar 

Skaane P, Sebuødegård S, Bandos AI, Gur D, Osteras BH, Gullien R, Hofvind S. Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo tomosynthesis screening trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:489–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4705-2.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bernardi D, Macaskill P, Pellegrini M, Valentini M, Fantò C, Ostillio L, Tuttobene P, Luparia A, Houssami N. Breast cancer screening with tomosynthesis (3Dmammography) with acquired or synthetic 2D mammography compared with 2D mammography alone (STORM-2): a population-based prospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:1105–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30101-2.

Article  Google Scholar 

Moger TA, Swanson JO, Holen ÅS, Hanestad B, Hofvind S. Cost differences between digital tomosynthesis and standard digital mammography in a breast cancer screening programme: results from the To-Be trial in Norway. Eur J Health Econ. 2019;20:1261–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-019-01094-7.

Article