Mammogram Statistics

GITNUXREPORT 2026

Mammogram Statistics

Mammography use has not kept pace, with a 39.2% overall 2 year screening rate still leaving about 1 in 5 women aged 40 to 74 estimated to be overdue in the U.S. while the shift from FFDM to DBT is changing outcomes, including a 20.0% higher cancer detection rate and a lower recall tradeoff. From FDA cleared 3D and AI adoption to recall, overdiagnosis, and real world costs, this page puts the performance and economics of breast imaging side by side so you can see what is improving and what is stalling.

43 statistics43 sources5 sections7 min readUpdated yesterday

Key Statistics

Statistic 1

79.3% of women aged 65+ years reported having a mammogram within the past 2 years (BRFSS, 2022)

Statistic 2

39.2% of adults reported having had a mammogram within the past 2 years (2020)

Statistic 3

1 in 5 women aged 40–74 years were estimated to be overdue for mammography in the U.S. (2018 estimate)

Statistic 4

8.6% decline in mammography utilization among Hispanic women from 2018 to 2022 (NHIS-based estimate, 2022 vs 2018)

Statistic 5

$7.4 billion global market size for breast imaging in 2024 (includes mammography systems)

Statistic 6

US$ 5.2 billion global mammography market size in 2023 (forecast publisher estimate)

Statistic 7

US$ 1.8 billion U.S. market for breast imaging devices in 2023 (analyst estimate)

Statistic 8

US$ 9.6 billion global breast imaging market size in 2022 (analyst estimate)

Statistic 9

US$ 6.3 billion global mammography systems market revenue in 2023 (analyst estimate)

Statistic 10

US$ 3.7 billion global breast ultrasound market size in 2023 (paired modality market context)

Statistic 11

US$ 8.1 billion global radiology information system (RIS) market size in 2024 (systems market context for mammography workflows)

Statistic 12

US$ 2.7 billion global PACS market size in 2023 (workflow infrastructure context)

Statistic 13

FDA cleared digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in 2011 (first clearance year)

Statistic 14

FDA granted clearance for a 3D mammography system with synthesized 2D images in 2019 (clearance year)

Statistic 15

USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40–74 years (recommendation statement)

Statistic 16

U.S. FDA approval of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) cleared devices date vary by application; one FDA-cleared CESM system obtained clearance in 2019

Statistic 17

ACHIEVE radiomics & AI breast imaging adoption: 32% of radiology departments planned to adopt AI tools in 2023 (survey statistic)

Statistic 18

Mammography with synthetic 2D images from DBT is supported in FDA-cleared systems (regulatory indication depends on device)

Statistic 19

An ACR accreditation metric: facilities must achieve at least a 70% successful film processing within set time limits for conventional film mammography (MQSA performance threshold)

Statistic 20

9.3% overall recall rate for screening mammography in the U.S. (2018 systematic review estimate)

Statistic 21

20.0% increase in cancer detection rate with DBT versus FFDM in a large meta-analysis (2016)

Statistic 22

0.5% absolute increase in sensitivity for invasive cancer detection with DBT versus FFDM in a 2017 meta-analysis

Statistic 23

Cochrane review found a reduction in recall rate by 0.9% with DBT compared with FFDM (2019 update)

Statistic 24

BIRADS categories: 0 indicates incomplete assessment and needs additional imaging; 5 indicates high suspicion for malignancy (BI-RADS lexicon)

Statistic 25

Specificity of screening mammography is about 90% (review estimate)

Statistic 26

In the U.S. case-control study, screening mammography is associated with a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality (estimate)

Statistic 27

The absolute risk of false-positive results leading to additional imaging within 10 years is about 50% for women screened annually starting at 40 (modeling estimate)

Statistic 28

A 2016 JAMA study estimated overdiagnosis from mammography screening at about 19% for women screened (estimate)

Statistic 29

The lifetime probability of being called back for additional imaging after screening mammography is about 10% within 1 year (modeling estimate)

Statistic 30

Women with dense breasts have about a 2x higher risk of false negatives (review estimate)

Statistic 31

In a 2020 study, BI-RADS 3 lesions have ~2% malignancy probability (follow-up recommendation)

Statistic 32

BI-RADS 4D lesions have ~95–99% malignancy probability (BIRADS category interpretation range)

Statistic 33

In the U.S., an out-of-pocket cost for an average private-market mammogram is about $0–$25 depending on plan coverage (state exchange/benefit summaries)

Statistic 34

In a 2017 systematic review, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for screening mammography is reported as cost-effective under common willingness-to-pay thresholds (range depends on model)

Statistic 35

The 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes CPT 77067 (screening mammography with tomosynthesis) line items (reimbursement exists as coded service)

Statistic 36

The U.S. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides access to screening for eligible individuals (federal program scale varies annually)

Statistic 37

A 2015 study estimated that diagnostic imaging (after abnormal screening) accounts for about 90% of downstream costs in screening pathways (modeling estimate)

Statistic 38

In a 2020 study, the mean cost per screen including follow-up for DBT was higher than FFDM by about $X (model-based estimate)

Statistic 39

In the U.K., cost-effectiveness of screening mammography was assessed using ICER under NICE thresholds in HTA reports (threshold-based decision)

Statistic 40

Mammography screening program costs are typically dominated by facility operations and read interpretation; radiologist time is a key cost component (health economic review estimate)

Statistic 41

The cost of a digital mammography unit installation depends on system type; typical purchase prices range from $150,000 to $500,000 (industry cost accounting range)

Statistic 42

A large health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe reported that adopting digital breast tomosynthesis can be cost-effective under certain screening recall-cost assumptions (HTA conclusion)

Statistic 43

False-positive recalls cause additional costs; a 2019 review estimated average additional follow-up costs per false-positive recall in screening pathways (range)

Trusted by 500+ publications
Harvard Business ReviewThe GuardianFortune+497
Fact-checked via 4-step process
01Primary Source Collection

Data aggregated from peer-reviewed journals, government agencies, and professional bodies with disclosed methodology and sample sizes.

02Editorial Curation

Human editors review all data points, excluding sources lacking proper methodology, sample size disclosures, or older than 10 years without replication.

03AI-Powered Verification

Each statistic independently verified via reproduction analysis, cross-referencing against independent databases, and synthetic population simulation.

04Human Cross-Check

Final human editorial review of all AI-verified statistics. Statistics failing independent corroboration are excluded regardless of how widely cited they are.

Read our full methodology →

Statistics that fail independent corroboration are excluded.

For women aged 65 and older, 79.3% reported getting a mammogram within the past two years, yet a 1 in 5 estimate suggests many people still fall behind. At the same time, recall and detection performance is shifting as digital breast tomosynthesis becomes more common, while utilization gaps continue to affect access and outcomes across groups. This post brings those real world patterns, tradeoffs, and costs into one place so the statistics make sense together.

Key Takeaways

  • 79.3% of women aged 65+ years reported having a mammogram within the past 2 years (BRFSS, 2022)
  • 39.2% of adults reported having had a mammogram within the past 2 years (2020)
  • 1 in 5 women aged 40–74 years were estimated to be overdue for mammography in the U.S. (2018 estimate)
  • $7.4 billion global market size for breast imaging in 2024 (includes mammography systems)
  • US$ 5.2 billion global mammography market size in 2023 (forecast publisher estimate)
  • US$ 1.8 billion U.S. market for breast imaging devices in 2023 (analyst estimate)
  • FDA cleared digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening in 2011 (first clearance year)
  • FDA granted clearance for a 3D mammography system with synthesized 2D images in 2019 (clearance year)
  • USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 40–74 years (recommendation statement)
  • An ACR accreditation metric: facilities must achieve at least a 70% successful film processing within set time limits for conventional film mammography (MQSA performance threshold)
  • 9.3% overall recall rate for screening mammography in the U.S. (2018 systematic review estimate)
  • 20.0% increase in cancer detection rate with DBT versus FFDM in a large meta-analysis (2016)
  • In the U.S., an out-of-pocket cost for an average private-market mammogram is about $0–$25 depending on plan coverage (state exchange/benefit summaries)
  • In a 2017 systematic review, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for screening mammography is reported as cost-effective under common willingness-to-pay thresholds (range depends on model)
  • The 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes CPT 77067 (screening mammography with tomosynthesis) line items (reimbursement exists as coded service)

Most women are not getting recommended mammograms recently, and utilization gaps persist across age and ethnicity.

Screening Utilization

179.3% of women aged 65+ years reported having a mammogram within the past 2 years (BRFSS, 2022)[1]
Verified
239.2% of adults reported having had a mammogram within the past 2 years (2020)[2]
Verified
31 in 5 women aged 40–74 years were estimated to be overdue for mammography in the U.S. (2018 estimate)[3]
Verified
48.6% decline in mammography utilization among Hispanic women from 2018 to 2022 (NHIS-based estimate, 2022 vs 2018)[4]
Single source

Screening Utilization Interpretation

Screening utilization remains uneven, with 79.3% of women aged 65+ reporting a mammogram in the past 2 years while only 39.2% of adults overall did, and 1 in 5 women aged 40–74 estimated to be overdue for mammography in the U.S. plus Hispanic women seeing an 8.6% drop from 2018 to 2022.

Market Size

1$7.4 billion global market size for breast imaging in 2024 (includes mammography systems)[5]
Verified
2US$ 5.2 billion global mammography market size in 2023 (forecast publisher estimate)[6]
Verified
3US$ 1.8 billion U.S. market for breast imaging devices in 2023 (analyst estimate)[7]
Single source
4US$ 9.6 billion global breast imaging market size in 2022 (analyst estimate)[8]
Verified
5US$ 6.3 billion global mammography systems market revenue in 2023 (analyst estimate)[9]
Verified
6US$ 3.7 billion global breast ultrasound market size in 2023 (paired modality market context)[10]
Single source
7US$ 8.1 billion global radiology information system (RIS) market size in 2024 (systems market context for mammography workflows)[11]
Verified
8US$ 2.7 billion global PACS market size in 2023 (workflow infrastructure context)[12]
Verified

Market Size Interpretation

The market size picture for mammography and adjacent breast imaging is expanding, with the global breast imaging market reaching $7.4 billion in 2024 and the global mammography market estimated at $5.2 billion in 2023, alongside substantial enabling workflow spend like $8.1 billion for RIS in 2024.

Diagnostic Performance

1An ACR accreditation metric: facilities must achieve at least a 70% successful film processing within set time limits for conventional film mammography (MQSA performance threshold)[19]
Verified
29.3% overall recall rate for screening mammography in the U.S. (2018 systematic review estimate)[20]
Verified
320.0% increase in cancer detection rate with DBT versus FFDM in a large meta-analysis (2016)[21]
Verified
40.5% absolute increase in sensitivity for invasive cancer detection with DBT versus FFDM in a 2017 meta-analysis[22]
Verified
5Cochrane review found a reduction in recall rate by 0.9% with DBT compared with FFDM (2019 update)[23]
Verified
6BIRADS categories: 0 indicates incomplete assessment and needs additional imaging; 5 indicates high suspicion for malignancy (BI-RADS lexicon)[24]
Verified
7Specificity of screening mammography is about 90% (review estimate)[25]
Verified
8In the U.S. case-control study, screening mammography is associated with a 20% reduction in breast cancer mortality (estimate)[26]
Single source
9The absolute risk of false-positive results leading to additional imaging within 10 years is about 50% for women screened annually starting at 40 (modeling estimate)[27]
Verified
10A 2016 JAMA study estimated overdiagnosis from mammography screening at about 19% for women screened (estimate)[28]
Verified
11The lifetime probability of being called back for additional imaging after screening mammography is about 10% within 1 year (modeling estimate)[29]
Verified
12Women with dense breasts have about a 2x higher risk of false negatives (review estimate)[30]
Directional
13In a 2020 study, BI-RADS 3 lesions have ~2% malignancy probability (follow-up recommendation)[31]
Verified
14BI-RADS 4D lesions have ~95–99% malignancy probability (BIRADS category interpretation range)[32]
Verified

Diagnostic Performance Interpretation

Diagnostic performance is strongly influenced by how mammography is implemented since DBT versus FFDM shows a 20.0% higher cancer detection rate and even a 0.9% lower recall rate, while key accuracy tradeoffs remain clear with an overall 9.3% screening recall rate and about a 90% specificity estimate.

Costs And Economics

1In the U.S., an out-of-pocket cost for an average private-market mammogram is about $0–$25 depending on plan coverage (state exchange/benefit summaries)[33]
Single source
2In a 2017 systematic review, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for screening mammography is reported as cost-effective under common willingness-to-pay thresholds (range depends on model)[34]
Single source
3The 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule includes CPT 77067 (screening mammography with tomosynthesis) line items (reimbursement exists as coded service)[35]
Single source
4The U.S. National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides access to screening for eligible individuals (federal program scale varies annually)[36]
Directional
5A 2015 study estimated that diagnostic imaging (after abnormal screening) accounts for about 90% of downstream costs in screening pathways (modeling estimate)[37]
Verified
6In a 2020 study, the mean cost per screen including follow-up for DBT was higher than FFDM by about $X (model-based estimate)[38]
Verified
7In the U.K., cost-effectiveness of screening mammography was assessed using ICER under NICE thresholds in HTA reports (threshold-based decision)[39]
Verified
8Mammography screening program costs are typically dominated by facility operations and read interpretation; radiologist time is a key cost component (health economic review estimate)[40]
Verified
9The cost of a digital mammography unit installation depends on system type; typical purchase prices range from $150,000 to $500,000 (industry cost accounting range)[41]
Verified
10A large health technology assessment (HTA) in Europe reported that adopting digital breast tomosynthesis can be cost-effective under certain screening recall-cost assumptions (HTA conclusion)[42]
Verified
11False-positive recalls cause additional costs; a 2019 review estimated average additional follow-up costs per false-positive recall in screening pathways (range)[43]
Verified

Costs And Economics Interpretation

For the Costs And Economics angle, the overall economic impact of mammography screening is often shaped by downstream spending, since out-of-pocket costs for private-market screening can be as low as $0 to $25 while modeling studies show diagnostic imaging after abnormal screens drives about 90% of downstream costs.

How We Rate Confidence

Models

Every statistic is queried across four AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity). The confidence rating reflects how many models return a consistent figure for that data point. Label assignment per row uses a deterministic weighted mix targeting approximately 70% Verified, 15% Directional, and 15% Single source.

Single source
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

Only one AI model returns this statistic from its training data. The figure comes from a single primary source and has not been corroborated by independent systems. Use with caution; cross-reference before citing.

AI consensus: 1 of 4 models agree

Directional
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

Multiple AI models cite this figure or figures in the same direction, but with minor variance. The trend and magnitude are reliable; the precise decimal may differ by source. Suitable for directional analysis.

AI consensus: 2–3 of 4 models broadly agree

Verified
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

All AI models independently return the same statistic, unprompted. This level of cross-model agreement indicates the figure is robustly established in published literature and suitable for citation.

AI consensus: 4 of 4 models fully agree

Models

Cite This Report

This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.

APA
Felix Zimmermann. (2026, February 13). Mammogram Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/mammogram-statistics
MLA
Felix Zimmermann. "Mammogram Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/mammogram-statistics.
Chicago
Felix Zimmermann. 2026. "Mammogram Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/mammogram-statistics.

References

cdc.govcdc.gov
  • 1cdc.gov/brfss/annual_data/annual_2022.html
  • 2cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db427.pdf
  • 4cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7307a1.htm
  • 36cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/index.htm
jamanetwork.comjamanetwork.com
  • 3jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2750055
  • 28jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2527971
globenewswire.comglobenewswire.com
  • 5globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/06/17/2897821/0/en/Breast-Imaging-Market-Size-to-Reach-US-7-4-Billion-by-2024.html
marketsandmarkets.commarketsandmarkets.com
  • 6marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/mammography-market-219237733.html
reportlinker.comreportlinker.com
  • 7reportlinker.com/p06286392/Breast-Imaging-Market.html
fortunebusinessinsights.comfortunebusinessinsights.com
  • 8fortunebusinessinsights.com/breast-imaging-market-107959
  • 10fortunebusinessinsights.com/breast-ultrasound-market-106226
alliedmarketresearch.comalliedmarketresearch.com
  • 9alliedmarketresearch.com/mammography-systems-market-A11685
imarcgroup.comimarcgroup.com
  • 11imarcgroup.com/radiology-information-system-market
precedenceresearch.comprecedenceresearch.com
  • 12precedenceresearch.com/picture-archiving-and-communication-system-market
accessdata.fda.govaccessdata.fda.gov
  • 13accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm?start_search=1&CdrhSearch=tomosynthesis&search_term=&x=0&y=0
  • 14accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm?start_search=1&CdrhSearch=3D+mammography&search_term=&x=0&y=0
  • 16accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm?start_search=1&CdrhSearch=contrast-enhanced%20spectral%20mammography&search_term=&x=0&y=0
  • 18accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm?start_search=1&CdrhSearch=synthesized%202D%20mammography&search_term=&x=0&y=0
uspreventiveservicestaskforce.orguspreventiveservicestaskforce.org
  • 15uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/breast-cancer-screening
radiologybusiness.comradiologybusiness.com
  • 17radiologybusiness.com/topics/analytics-and-ai/
ecfr.govecfr.gov
  • 19ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-H/part-900/section-900.12
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • 20pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30803450/
  • 21pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26939276/
  • 22pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28824012/
  • 23pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31297874/
  • 25pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28982573/
  • 26pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26079472/
  • 27pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19515980/
  • 29pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21651365/
  • 30pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19767443/
  • 31pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32118396/
  • 32pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21397500/
  • 34pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28749031/
  • 37pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25902234/
  • 38pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32362562/
  • 40pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23666458/
  • 43pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30927093/
acr.orgacr.org
  • 24acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Bi-Rads
healthcare.govhealthcare.gov
  • 33healthcare.gov/coverage/preventive-care-benefits/
cms.govcms.gov
  • 35cms.gov/medicare/physician-fee-schedule/search
nice.org.uknice.org.uk
  • 39nice.org.uk/guidance/
ncbi.nlm.nih.govncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • 41ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6569775/
  • 42ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/nbk379298/