Publications & Workshops

Peer reviewed papers

• Study of the breast with implants in tomosynthesis
  

  • Enrico Pofi, Rosella Stella, Roberta Fedele, Sara Vecchio, Domenica D’Ottavio, Ilaria Valenti

  • Journal of Biomedical Practitioners (JBP)
  • 2021
• Breast Density Analysis on Mammograms: application of Machine Learning with textural features 
  

  • Francesca Angelone, Carlo Ricciardi, Gianluca Gatta, Mario Sansone, Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione, Maria Paola Belfiore, Francesco Amato, Roberto Grassi

  • IEEE Xplore
  • 2022
• Effect of X-ray scatter correction on the estimation of attenuation coefficient in mammography: a simulation study

  • Mario Sansone, Francesca Angelone, Roberto Grassi, Alfonso Maria Ponsiglione, Francesco Amato

  • IEEE Xplore 
  • 2022
• Comparison between two packages for pectoral muscle removal on mammographic images

  • Mario Sansone, Stefano Marrone, Giusi Di Salvio, Maria Paola Belfiore, Gianluca Gatta, Roberta Fusco, Laura Vanore, Chiara Zuiani, Francesca Grassi, Maria Teresa Vietri, Vincenza Granata, Roberto Grassi

  •  Breast Radiology

  • 2022
• Digital breast tomosynthesis plus synthesised mammography versus digital screening mammography for the detection of invasive breast cancer (TOSYMA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, superiority trial
  

  • Walter Heindel, Stefanie Weigel, Joachim Gerß, Hans-Werner Hense, Alexander Sommer, Miriam Krischke, Laura Kerschke, for the TOSYMA, Screening Trial Study Group

  • Lancet Oncol 2022; 23: 601–11

  • 2022
• Safety and efficacy of tomosynthesis‑guided breast biopsies in the prone position: monocentric study and review of the literature

  • Antonio Catelli, Angela Santoro, Elena Antignani, Pietro Venetucci, Salvatore Minelli

  • Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology 148: 967–974

  • 2022
• Radiomic features of breast parenchyma: assessing differences between FOR PROCESSING and FOR PRESENTATION digital mammography
  • Mario Sansone, Roberta Grassi, Maria Paola Belfiore, Gianluca Gatta, Francesca Grassi, Fabio Pinto, Giorgia Viola La Casella, Roberta Fusco, Salvatore Cappabianca, Vincenza Granata and Roberto Grassi
  • Insights Imaging 12:147
  • 2021
• Mammographic density: Comparison of visual assessment with fully automatic calculation on a multivendor dataset
  • Daniela Sacchetto, Lia Morra, Silvano Agliozzo, Daniela Bernardi, Tomas Björklund, Beniamino Brancato, Patrizia Bravetti, Luca A. Carbonaro, Loredana Correale, Carmen Fantò, Elisabetta Favettini, Laura Martincich, Luisella Milanesio, Sara Mombelloni, Francesco Monetti, Doralba Morrone, Marco Pellegrini, Barbara Pesce, Antonella Petrillo, Gianni Saguatti, Carmen Stevanin, Rubina M. Trimboli, Paola Tuttobene, Marvi Valentini, Vincenzo Marra, Alfonso Frigerio, Alberto Bert, Francesco Sardanelli
  • European Radiology 26(1): 175–183
  • 2016

• Impact on the recall rate of digital breast tomosynthesis as an adjunct to digital mammography in the screening setting. A double reading experience and review of the literature
  • Luca A. Carbonaro, Giovanni Di Leo, Paola Clauser, Rubina M. Trimboli, Nicola Verardi, Maria P. Fedeli, Rossano Girometti, Alfredo Tafa, Paola Bruscoli,Gianni Saguatti, Massimo Bazzocchi, Francesco Sardanelli
  • European Journal of Radiology 85(4): 808–814
  • 2016

• Additional findings at preoperative breast MRI: the value of second-look digital breast tomosynthesis
  • Paola Clauser, Luca A. Carbonaro, Martina Pancot, Rossano Girometti, Massimo Bazzocchi, Chiara Zuiani, Francesco Sardanelli
  • European Radiology 25(10):2830–2839
  • 2015

• Phyllodes tumor: diagnostic imaging and histopathology findings
  • Alina Cristiana Venter, Elena Roşca, Lucia Georgeta Daina, Gabriela Muţiu, Adriana Nicoleta Pirte, Daniela Rahotă
  • Romanian Journal of Morphology and Embryology 56(4):1397–1402
  • 2015

• Digital Compared with Screen-Film Mammography: Performance Measures in Concurrent Cohorts within an Organized Breast Screening Program
  • Anna M. Chiarelli, Sarah A. Edwards, Maegan V. Prummel, Derek Muradali, Vicky Majpruz, Susan J. Done, Patrick Brown, Rene S. Shumak, Martin J. Yaffe
  • Radiology 268(3):684–6932
  • 2013

• Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography
  • Hilde Bosmans, An De Hauwere, Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck, Andre Van Steen, Patrick Martens, Luc Bleyen, Gretel Vande Putte, Eliane Kellen, Griet Mortier, Erik Van Limbergen
  • European Radiology 23(10):2891:2898
  • 2013

• A novel approach to digital breast tomosynthesis for simultaneous acquisition of 2D and 3D images
  • Sara Vecchio, Achille Albanese, Paolo Vignoli, Angelo Taibi
  • European Radiology 21(6):1207–1213
  • 2011

Scientific Talks

• Synthetic Digital Mammography with Additional Digital Tomosynthesis Compared to Conventional Full-field Digital Mammography with Additional Digital Tomosynthesis
  • Berger N., Luparia A., Carbonaro L.A., Di Leo G., Ali M., Sardanelli F.,
  • Presented at RSNA 2016, SSG01-06

• Does the adjunct of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) increase inter-reader reproducibility of two-dimensional digital mammography (2D-DM)?
  • Di Leo G., Carbonaro L.A., Bazzocchi M., Londero V., Dal Col A., Trimboli R.M., Sardanelli F.
  • Presented at ECR 2013, B-0687

• Detection rate for suspicious lesions of digital breast tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography or 2D central projection imaging (SS 1702)
  • Zuiani C., Clauser P., Londero V., Molinari C., Girometti R., Taibi A., Vecchio S., Bazzocchi M.
  • Presented at ECR 2013, B-0811

• Influence of breast density on diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) after digital mammography (DM) focusing on recall rate reduction (SS 1702)
  • Carbonaro L.A., Trimboli R.M., Verardi N., Fedeli M., Di Leo G., Sardanelli F.
  • Presented at ECR 2013, B-0814

• Recall rate reduction by adding double reading digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) to digital mammography (DM) (SS 1702)
  • Carbonaro L.A., Trimboli R.M., Verardi N., Khouri Chalouhi K., Di Leo G., Sardanelli F.
  • Presented at ECR 2013, B-0815

• Mammographic technique: Frontal oblique approach versus traditional lateral approach (SS 1402)
  • Calabrese M., Faedda C., Brizzi D., Baio G., Bertoli E., Bacigalupo L.
  • Presented at ECR 2005, B-589

Posters

• Biopsia CEM-guidata, tecnica di esecuzione, fattibilità e risultati preliminari
  • Authors: Stella R., Iacobelli D., Altomari F., Tripodi V., Mazzoleni C., Araneo A.L., De Lisio A., D’Amelio L. 

• Contrast Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM): dalla tecnica alle applicazioni future
  • Poster No.: PD-17/16
  • Authors: Federico Cerimele – Ancona (An) , C. Ventura , C. Floridi , P. Ercolani , E. Marconi , A. Giovagnoni

• La mammografia con mezzo di contrasto può rappresentare un’alternativa alla risonanza magnetica con mezzo di contrasto in mammelle caratterizzate da marcato potenziamento ghiandolare di fondo?
  • Poster No.: PS-17/14
  • Authors: Roberto Maroncelli – Roma (Rm) , F. Galati , G. Moffa , V. Rizzo , F. Pediconi
• CEDM: Incremento della detection rate in pazienti con seno denso e lesione primitiva accertata (B5). L’esperienza del Centro di Senologia e Screening Ospedale Santo Spirito in Sassia (ASL Roma1)
  • Poster No.: PS-17/32
  • Authors: Fiorella Altomari – Roma (Rm) , A. Araneo , D. Iacobelli , C. Mazzoleni , V. Tripodi , R. Stella

• Appearance of malignant breast lesions identified with Digital Breast Tomosynthesis
  • Poster No.: C-1553
  • Congress: ECR 2013
  • Authors: P. Clauser, A. De Nicolò, V. Londero, C. Zuiani, M. Bazzocchi, C. Molinari
  • DOI: 10.1594/ecr2013/C-1553

• Malignant lesions appearance in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: does the semeiotic change?
  • Poster No.: C-1961
  • Congress: ECR 2013
  • Authors: P. Clauser, A. De Nicolò, V. Londero, C. Zuiani, M. Bazzocchi
  • DOI: 10.1594/ecr2013/C-1961

• Diagnostic yield of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography in the assessment of breast cancer: a study on surgical specimens.
  • Poster No.: C-2010
  • Congress: ECR 2013
  • Authors: C. Molinari, A. Gualano, E. Di Gaetano, V. Londero, R. Girometti, S. Vecchio, A. Taibi, C. Zuiani, M. Bazzocchi
  • DOI: 10.1594/ecr2013/C-2010

• Diagnostic yield of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) vs Digital Mammography (DM) in assessing breast cancer: a study on surgical specimens.
  • Poster No.: C-1390
  • Congress: ECR 2012
  • Authors: R. Girometti, C. Zuiani, A. Taibi, S. Vecchio, R. Fazzin, M. Bazzocchi
  • DOI: 10.1594/ecr2012/C-1390

• Comparison of one-view digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and two-view full-field digital mammography (FFDM)
  • Poster No.: C-2258
  • Congress: ECR 2012
  • Authors: G. Saguatti, P. Mainoldi, R. Stamati, D. Focker, A. Tafà, P. Bruscoli
  • DOI: 10.1594/ecr2012/C-2258

Physics characterizations including IMS Giotto devices from peer reviewed papers

• A comparative study of physical image quality in digital and synthetic mammography from commercially available mammography systems. 
  • Baldelli P, Bertolini M, Contillo A, et al
  • Phys Med Biol. 2018; 63(16):165020

• A quantitative metrology for performance characterization of five breast tomosynthesis systems based on an anthropomorphic phantom. 
  • Ikejimba L, Lo JY, Chen Y, Oberhofer N, Kiarashi N, Samei E.
  • Med Phys. 2016; 43(4):162

• Average glandular dose in digital mammography and digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of phantom and patient data. 
  • Bouwman RW, van Engen RE, Young KC, et al
  • Phys Med Biol. 2015; 60(20):7893–7907

• Synchrotron based planar imaging and digital tomosynthesis of breast and biopsy phantoms using a CMOS active pixel sensor.
  • Szafraniec MB, Konstantinidis AC, Tromba G, et al
  • Physica Medica 2015; 31(2):192–198

• Technical and clinical breast cancer screening performance indicators for computed radiography versus direct digital radiography
  • Hilde Bosmans, An De Hauwere, Kim Lemmens, Federica Zanca, Hubert Thierens, Chantal Van Ongeval, Koen Van Herck, Andre Van Steen, Patrick Martens, Luc Bleyen, Gretel Vande Putte, Eliane Kellen, Griet Mortier, Erik Van Limbergen
  • European Radiology 23(10):2891:2898
  • 2013

• Comparison of visual grading and free-response ROC analyses for assessment of image-processing algorithms in digital mammography.
  • Zanca F, Van Ongeval C, Claus F, Jacobs J, Oyen R, Bosmans H.
  • Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1233-41

• Constancy Checking of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Systems.
  • Jacobs J, Marshall NW, Cockmartin L, et al
  • Proceedings of IWDM 2010. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6136: 518–525

• Evaluation of clinical image processing algorithms used in digital mammography.
  • Zanca F, Jacobs J, Van Ongeval C, Claus F, Celis V, Geniets C, Provost V, Pauwels H, Marchal G, Bosmans H.
  • Med Phys. 2009; 36(3):765-75

• Application of European protocol in the evaluation of contrast-to-noise ratio and mean glandular dose for two digital mammography systems.
  • Muhogora WE, Devetti A, Padovani R, Msaki P, Bonutti F.
  • Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008; 129(1-3):231-6

• Automatic Exposure Control in Digital Mammography: Contrast-to-Noise Ratio Versus Average Glandular Dose.
  • Gennaro G, Golinelli P, Bellan E, et al
  • Proceedings of IWDM 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5116: 711–715

• Physical characteristics of five clinical systems for digital mammography.
  • Lazzari B, Belli G, Gori C, Rosselli Del Turco M.
  • Med Phys. 2007; 34(7):2730-43.

• La mammographie numérique: paramètres utiles à l’évaluation des systèmes et offre industrielle en France.
  • Stines J, Noel A, Heid P.
  • J Radiol. 2007; 88(7-8 Pt 1):933-42.

• Comparison of different commercial FFDM units by means of physical characterization and contrast-detail analysis.
  • Rivetti S, Lanconelli N, Campanini R, Bertolini M, Borasi G, Nitrosi A, Danielli C, Angelini L, Maggi S.
  • Med Phys. 2006; 33(11):4198-209

Documents mentioning IMS Giotto devices

• Normalized glandular dose coefficients for digital breast tomosynthesis systems with a homogeneous breast model.
  • Antonio Sarno, Raffaele Maria Tucciariello3, Giovanni Mettivier, Damiano Del Sarto, Maria Evelina Fantacci, Paolo Russo
  • Phys Med Biol. 2021; 66(6):065024

• Design and development of a phantom for tomosynthesis with potential for automated analysis via the cloud.
  • David Goodenough, Josh Levy, Hildur Olafsdottir, Ingvi Olafsson
  • Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics 2018; 19(3):291-300

• A novel approach to background subtraction in contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography with commercially available mammography devices: Noise minimization.
  • Contillo A, Di Domenico G, Cardarelli P, et al
  • Med Phys. 2016; 43(6):3080

• A novel approach to background subtraction in contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography with commercially available mammography devices: Polychromaticity correction.
  • Contillo A, Di Domenico G, Cardarelli P, et al
  • Med Phys. 2015; 42(11):6641

• Digital Mammography Screening with Photon-counting Technique: Can a High Diagnostic Performance Be Realized at Low Mean Glandular Dose?
  • Weigel S, Berkemeyer S, Girnus R, et al
  • Radiology 2014; 271(2):345–55

• Comparison of the polynomial model against explicit measurements of noise components for different mammography systems.
  • Monnin P, Bosmans H, Verdun FR, Marshall NW
  • Phys Med Biol. 2014; 59(19):5741–61

• 2.05 – Breast Imaging.
  • Taibi A, Vecchio S
  • In COMPREHENSIVE BIOMEDICAL PHYSICS. 2014. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam, vol 2, pp 121–154

• A Review of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.
  • Reiser IS, Sechopoulos I
  • Med Phys Int J. 2014; 2(1):57–66

• Digital breast tomosynthesis: Studies of the effects of acquisition geometry on contrast-to-noise ratio and observer preference of low-contrast objects in breast phantom images.
  • Goodsitt MM, Chan H-P, Schmitz A, et al
  • Phys Med Biol 2014; 59(19):5883–5902

• A review of breast tomosynthesis. Part I. The image acquisition process.
  • Sechopoulos I
  • Med Phys. 2013; 40(1):014301

Workshop

• Sorrento (IT), SIRM Tomosynthesis Course
• Stuttgart (DE), Hands-On Workshop on Tomosynthesis
• Sarzana (IT),  SIRM Tomosynthesis Course
• Vienna (AT), EUSOBI Tomosynthesis Course
• Vienna (AT), ECR Congress 
• Sorrento (IT), SIRM Tomosynthesis local congress
• Turin (IT). SIRM Tomosynthesis course
• Rome (IT). SIRM Tomosynthesis course
• Amsterdam (NL). EUSOBI meeting.
• Istanbul (TR). Breast Congress 2014.
• Bern (CH) Workshop Tomosynthesis
• Milan (IT). SIRM Tomosynthesis course
• Bologna (IT) SIRM Breast Congress.

Interesting external links

• An unconventional approach to radiographic energy management in an x-ray tube for mammography
  • July 2017