Find Mammi

Mammi is an Oncovision original technology

Oncovision is a leading provider of innovative medical imaging devices used by surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and nuclear medicine physicians for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Oncovision has grown into a dynamic global brand in a technologically competitive, high-growth industry.

Oncovision has offices in Boston (USA) and Valencia (Spain) and sells its products in over 30 markets through a combination of direct sales and distributors. Through a strong internal pipeline, Oncovision boasts a clinical product line. If you would like to know more about Oncovision, please visit our website:

Mammi is used in top breast cancer centers in America, Asia, Europe and Middle East.

Please see the list below to find the closest Mammi center to you.



Acibadem International Hospital, Istanbul. Turkey

ERESA – University Hospital of Valencia, Valencia. Spain

MD Anderson, Madrid. Spain

Payam PET Scan Center, Karaj. Iran

Royal Free Hospital, London. United Kingdom

Ruber Internacional Hospital, Madrid. Spain

University Hospital of Santiago, Santiago de Compostela. Spain




Mayo Clinic, Rochester, United States

National Medical Center 20 de Noviembre, Mexico City. Mexico

Oncology Institute Angel H. Roffo, Buenos Aires. Argentina

UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco. United States



Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai. China

Gaien Higashi Clinic, Tokio. Japan

KK Women’s & Children’s Hospital. Singapore

Melinda Clinic, Shanghai. China


Contact us for more information

Oncovision, Inc.
30 Newbury St. – 3rd Floor
Boston MA 02108 (USA)
Office:+1 617-892-1057
Calle Jerónimo de Monsoriu,
92 bajo izquierda.
46022 – Valencia – Spain
Phone +34 96 372 24 72


    Email *

    Message *

    Country *

    City *

    I have read the privacy policy and legal info *


    Oncovision, Inc. 30 Newbury St. – 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02108 (USA) Office:+1 (857) 239 – 8267


    Oncovision Calle Jerónimo de Monsoriu, 92, bajo izquierda. 46022 Valencia – Spain Phone +34 96 372 24 72 Fax. +34 96 355 65 32

    Clinical Bibliography

    1. Dillon D, Guidi AJ, Schnitt SJ. Chapter 25: Pathology of Invasive Breast Cancer, in Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK. Diseases of the Breast, 5th edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014.


    3. Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with andwithout a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:855–63.

    4. Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016; 164(4):244-55.

    5. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al.; Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:427–37

    6. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004;292:1317–25.

    7. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al.; MARIBS Study Group. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet. 2005;365:1769–78. Erratum in: Lancet. 2005 May 28-Jun 3;365(9474):1848.

    8. Kelly KM, Dean J, Comulada WS, Lee SJ. Breast cancer detection using automated whole breast ultrasound and mammography in radiographically dense breasts. Eur Radiol 2010; 20:734–742

    9. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 2008; 299:2151–2163

    10. Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA 2012; 307:1394–1404

    11. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:8469–8476

    12. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Obdeijn IM, et al. Factors affecting sensitivity and specificity of screening mammography and MRI in women with an inherited risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006; 100:109–11

    13. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, O’Connor MK. Dedicated dual-head gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense breasts. Radiology 2011; 258:106–118

    14. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Conners AL, et al. Molecular breast imaging at reduced radiation dose for supplemental screening in mammographically dense breasts. AJR 2015; 204:241–251

    15. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL. Cumulative probability of falsepositive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. Annals of internal medicine. 2011;155(8):481-492.

    16. Seo M, Chang JM, Kim SA, et al. Addition of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis to Full-Field Digital Mammography in the Diagnostic Setting: Additional Value and Cancer Detectability. Journal of Breast Cancer. 2016;19:438-446.

    17. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al.: Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241:55-66.

    18. Klevos GA, Collado-Mesa F, Net JM, Yepes MM. Utility of supplemental screening with breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with dense breast tissue who are not at high risk for breast cancer. The Indian Journal of Radiology & Imaging. 2017;27:52-58.

    19. Bennani-Baiti B, Baltzer PA. MR Imaging for Diagnosis of Malignancy in Mammographic Microcalcifications: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Radiology. 2017;283:692-70

    20. Warner E, Messersmith H, Causer P, Eisen A, Shumak R, Plewes D. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:671-9.

    21. Khawaja AZ, Cassidy DB, Al Shakarchi J, et al. Revisiting the risks of MRI with Gadolinium based contrast agents-review of literature and guidelines. Insights Imaging. 2015;6:553-8.

    22. O’Connor M, Rhodes d, Hruska C. et al. Molecular breast imaging. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009;9:1073-80.

    23. Kumar R, Chauhan A, Zhuang H, et al. Clinicopathologic factors associated with false negative FDG-PET in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006;98:267–274

    24. García Hernández T, Vicedo González A, Ferrer Rebolleda J, et al. Performance evaluation of a high resolution dedicated breast PET scanner. Med Phys. 2016;43:2261.

    25. Moliner L, Gonzalez AJ, Soriano A, Design and evaluation of the MAMMI dedicated breast PET. Med Phys. 2012;39:5393-404.

    26. Jones EF, Ray KM, Li W, et al. Dedicated Breast Positron Emission Tomography for the Evaluation of Early Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer.
    Clin Breast Cancer. 2017;17:e155-e159.

    27. Abdullah N, Mesurolle B, El-Khoury M, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system lexicon for US: interobserver agreement for assessment of breast masses. Radiology. 2009;252:665-72.

    28. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 106(10), 2014.

    29. Boyd NF, Guo H, Martin LJ, et al. Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 356(3):227-36, 2007