title: Determinants of the number of mammography units in 31 countries with significant mammography screening.
abstract: In the 2000s, most of the female population of industrialised countries had access to mammography breast cancer screening, but with variable modalities among the countries. We assessed the number of mammography units (MUs) in 31 European, North American and Asian countries where significant mammography activity has existed for over 10 years, collecting data on the number of such units and of radiologists by contacting institutions in each country likely to provide the relevant information. Around 2004, there were 32,324 MU in 31 countries, the number per million women ranging from less than 25 in Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, Poland and Hungary to more than 80 in Cyprus, Italy, France, the United States and Austria. In a multivariate analysis, the number of MUs was positively associated with the number of radiologists (P=0.0081), the number of women (P=0.0023) and somewhat with the country surface area (P=0.077). There is considerable variation in the density of MU across countries and the number of MUs in service are often well above what would be necessary according to local screening recommendations. High number of MUs in some countries may have undesirable consequences, such as unnecessarily high screening frequency and decreased age at which screening is started.
authors.affiliation: Epidemiology Methods and Support Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. autierp@iarc.fr
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Autier
authors.forename: D
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Ait Ouakrim
authors.forename: D A
authors.initials: DA
authors.lastname: Ouakrim
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D019049:Developed Countries; D005260:Female; D006297:Health Services Accessibility; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*
references.citation: J Am Coll Radiol. 2005 Jul;2(7):585-94
references.pmid: 17411883
references.citation: Eur J Cancer Prev. 2003 Jun;12(3):213-22
references.pmid: 12771560
references.citation: Eur J Public Health. 2005 Feb;15(1):70-7
references.pmid: 15788807
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2008 Apr;19(4):614-22
references.pmid: 18024988
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Mar 2;97(5):358-67
references.pmid: 15741572
references.citation: Prev Med. 1998 Sep-Oct;27(5 Pt 1):697-701
references.pmid: 9808801
references.citation: Eur J Epidemiol. 2007;22(7):447-55
references.pmid: 17594526
references.citation: JAMA. 2003 Oct 22;290(16):2129-37
references.pmid: 14570948
references.citation: Diagn Interv Radiol. 2007 Sep;13(3):129-33
references.pmid: 17846986
references.citation: J Med Screen. 2004;11(4):187-93
references.pmid: 15624239
references.citation: Cancer. 2004 Oct 15;101(8):1850-9
references.pmid: 15386333
references.citation: Int J Cancer. 2005 Jan 20;113(3):464-70
references.pmid: 15455383
references.citation: Bull Cancer. 2002 Nov;89(11):957-62
references.pmid: 12495883
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2008 Jun;19(6):1187-94
references.pmid: 18325921
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2008 May;19(5):1009-18
references.pmid: 18296422
references.citation: Lancet. 2003 Apr 26;361(9367):1411-7
references.pmid: 12727393
references.citation: CMAJ. 2005 Jan 18;172(2):195-9
references.pmid: 15655240
references.citation: Lancet. 2006 Dec 9;368(9552):2053-60
references.pmid: 17161727
references.citation: Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2007 May 31;127(11):1492
references.pmid: 17551550
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1990 Oct 1;113(7):547-52
references.pmid: 2393209