Distribution and Use of Mammography Units in Greece

Spilios Zisimopoulos, Aris Dermitzakis, Nicolas Pallikarakis


Purpose: Mammography is the best screening practice for early diagnosis of breast cancer, which remains the leading cause of cancer death for women below seventy years of age. The availability of mammographic units (MUs) that can be easily accessed by the female population is very important for the early diagnosis of breast cancer. In this study, the distribution and use of MUs is investigated to provide an overall image of the implementation of this technology in Greece.

Materials and Methods: The relevant information and data collected in the present work are based on cross-referenced sources like OECD, WHO and EEAEA. A comparison is performed between 2021 and 2017 on the per population number of MUs installed, analyzed per administrative region, technology and public/private sector. The Lorenz curves and Gini coefficient metric were employed to assess the inter-regional equity of the MUs distribution.

Results: Greece has one of the highest numbers of MUs per population, well above the European average. However, the use rate remains unknown. Coverage is still lacking in some Aegean Sea islands, although the inequity observed in the distribution of MUs installed is low. The private sector is dominant representing 82% of the total 732 MUs installed. Moreover, 43% of the total units installed are using the outdated technologies of film and CR imaging. Nevertheless, the replacement of older equipment and a shift to more modern technologies is a recurring pattern in the last years and can lead to better cancer diagnosis.

Conclusions: Strategic planning of investments in new technologies and medical equipment distribution is a significant factor for reducing inequity and making healthcare technologies more accessible to the public.


Mammography units; Medical equipment distribution; Lorenz curves; Gini coefficient

Full Text:



World Health Assembly (2007), Resolution WHA60.29 on health technologies. Geneva: World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/medical_devices/policies/ who_resolutions/en/, accessed 22 March 2018).

WHO (2011), Needs assessment for medical devices. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO medical device technical series; https://saliterman.umn.edu/sites/saliterman.dl.umn.edu/files/general/who_-_needs_assessment_for_medical_devices_2011.pdf, accessed 1 April 2021).

World Health Organization (2018), Rationalizing distribution and utilization of high value capital medical equipment in Greece Assesment report, https://www.inbit.gr/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Rationalizing-Distribution-and-Utilization-of-High-Value-Capital-Medical-Equipment-in-Greece_EN.pdf

Harper S, Lynch J (2007). Commentary: using innovative inequality measures in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol. 36: 926-928. (https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/36/4/926/671058, accessed 1 April 2021).

Wolfson M, Rowe G (2001), On measuring inequalities in health. Bull World Health Organ. 79: 553-560. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566445/pdf/11436478.pdf , accessed 1 April 2021)

Brown MC (1994), Using Gini-style indices to evaluate the spatial patterns of health practitioners: theoretical considerations and an application based on Alberta data. Soc Sci Med 38: 1243–1256. pmid:8016689

Horev T, Pesis-Katz I, Mukamel DB (2004), Trends in geographic disparities in allocation of health care resources in the US. Health policy. 68: 223-232. 10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.09.011. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851003002203, accessed 1 April 2021).

He, D., Yu, H. & Chen, Y. (2013), Equity in the distribution of CT and MRI in China: a panel analysis. Int J Equity Health 12, 39. (https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-12-39 , accessed 1 April 2021).

Matsumoto M, Koike S, Kashima S, Awai K (2015), Geographic Distribution of CT, MRI and PET Devices in Japan: A Longitudinal Analysis Based on National Census Data. PLOS ONE 10(5): e0126036. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126036 , accessed 1 April 2021)

OECD (2021), Mammography machines (indicator). doi: 10.1787/685c9c5e-en (Accessed on 01 April 2021)

WHO/Global Health Observatory, Total density per million females aged from 50 to 69 years old: Mammography units, Last update 09/03/2016, Available at https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-details/GHO/total-density-per-million-females-aged-from-50-to-69-years-old-mammography-units, (Accessed 28/11/2021).

Dafni U, Tsourti Z, Alatsathianos I. (2019), Breast Cancer Statistics in the European Union: Incidence and Survival across European Countries. Breast Care (Basel). 14(6):344-353. doi: 10.1159/000503219. Epub 2019 Oct 8. PMID: 31933579; PMCID: PMC6940474.

OECD/European Union (2020), Health at a Glance: Europe 2020: State of Health in the EU Cycle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/82129230-en

Ekpo EU, Alakhras M, Brennan P. (2018), Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 19(2):291-301. Published 2018 Feb 26. doi:10.22034/APJCP.2018.19.2.291

Eurostat, Breast cancer screening statistics, Last edited on 24/03/2021, Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Breast_cancer_screening_statistics ISSN 2443-8219, (Accessed 28/11/2021).

European Commission/ECIBC, European breast cancer guidelines-Screening ages and frequencies, Last update 29/10/2021, Available at https://healthcare-quality.jrc.ec.europa.eu/european-breast-cancer-guidelines/screening-ages-and-frequencies, (Accessed 28/11/2021).

Lauby-Secretan B, Loomis D, Straif K. (2015), Breast-Cancer Screening--Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med. 373(15):1479. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1508733. PMID: 26444742.

Qaseem A, Lin JS, Mustafa RA, Horwitch CA, Wilt TJ (2019), Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians, Forciea MA, Fitterman N, Iorio A, Kansagara D, Maroto M, McLean RM, Tufte JE, Vijan S. Screening for Breast Cancer in Average-Risk Women: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 170(8):547-560. doi: 10.7326/M18-2147. Epub 2019 Apr 9. PMID: 30959525.

Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society [published correction appears in JAMA. 2016 Apr 5;315(13):1406]. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599-1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783.

American Cancer Society, Recommendations for the Early Detection of Breast Cancer, Last Revised: April 22, 2021, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-cancer/screening-tests-and-early-detection/american-cancer-society-recommendations-for-the-early-detection-of-breast-cancer, (Accessed 17/12/2021).

Autier P, Ouakrim DA (2008). Determinants of the number of mammography units in 31 countries with significant mammography screening. Br J Cancer 99(7):1185–90. (https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604657, accessed 1 April 2021).

COCIR (2014). Medical imaging equipment age profile & density: COCIR executive summary edition 2014. Brussels: European Coordination Committee of the Radiological, Electromedical and Healthcare IT Industry (https://www.cocir.org/uploads/media/14008_COC_Age_Profile_web_01.pdf, accessed 1 April 2021).

Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM, Havrilesky LJ, Grimm LJ, Ghate S, et al. (2015). Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA 314(15):1615–34 (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2463261).

Directorate-General for Energy (2014). European guidelines on medical physics expert. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b82ed768-4c50-4c9a-a789-98a3b0df5391/language-en, accessed 1 April 2021).

The European medical technology industry – in figures. MedTech Europe (2016). Belgium (MedTech_FactsFigures2016_20160105.pdf, accessed 1 April 2021).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.36162/hjr.v6i4.455


  • There are currently no refbacks.