<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>European Radiology</provider_name><provider_url>https://journals.myesr.org/eur-radiol</provider_url><title>Reply to: Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration - European Radiology</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="K48CnWYqnk"&gt;&lt;a href="https://journals.myesr.org/eur-radiol/opinions/reply-rosengurtt-2016/"&gt;Reply to: Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://journals.myesr.org/eur-radiol/opinions/reply-rosengurtt-2016/embed/#?secret=K48CnWYqnk" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;Reply to: Prospective trial comparing full-field digital mammography (FFDM) versus combined FFDM and tomosynthesis in a population-based screening programme using independent double reading with arbitration&#x201D; &#x2014; European Radiology" data-secret="K48CnWYqnk" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>Dear Editor, We thank Ana Rosengurtt for having read our article [1] &#x201C;with great interest&#x201D;, and the Editor of European Radiology for giving us the opportunity to respond to this letter. This letter raises some questions of interest to the breast imaging community regarding our article, and other issues not relevant to our paper. We [&hellip;]</description></oembed>
