Participation in the national organised breast cancer screening programme in 2024-2025 and evolution since 2010

📜🔗LINK to the source

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

A participation that is declining, against a backdrop of reorganisation of the system. Breast cancer remains the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death among women (≈ 61,000 cases, 12,000 deaths/year, p. 1). The national programme (PNDOCS), generalised in 2004, invites women aged 50-74 without high risk every two years. Since January 2024, the Health Insurance has been responsible for targeting and sending invitations, with the CRCDC maintaining follow-up (p. 2). For 2024-2025, the standardised participation rate is set at 45.6% (43.9% in 2024, 47.4% in 2025), down from 46.6% in 2022-2023 (p. 2, 6). The decline affects all age groups, except for a recent stability among 50-54 year-olds, and is part of an underlying trend that began in the mid-2010s (p. 6). The European target of 70% remains out of reach.

A detailed geographical overview, but transition data to be handled with caution. The report maps participation down to the departmental level (table 2, p. 8-10), revealing major disparities: from ~28% in Bouches-du-Rhône or 27% in Paris to ~57% in Manche or Hautes-Alpes, with a low point of 17.1% in French Guiana. Six regions resist (Normandy, Hauts-de-France, New Aquitaine, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Occitanie, Corsica). The authors honestly point out the limitations: invitation data still partial, effects of the new targeting algorithm not yet evaluated, and the hypothesis of a shift towards screening outside the programme (p. 2-3, 11). They also highlight supply tensions in senology and mammography reported by local stakeholders (p. 11).

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1. National participation is at 45.6% in 2024-2025, down from 46.6% in 2022-2023; for the year 2025 alone, it reaches 47.4% compared to 48.5% in 2023 — the odd-numbered year of reference for comparison (p. 2, 6). We remain over 24 points from the European target of 70%.
2. Significant territorial inequalities, with a ratio of 1 to over 3: Guyana 17.1%, PACA 33.4% (Bouches-du-Rhône 28.4%), Île-de-France 34.6% (Paris 27.2%), Corsica 33.5%, compared to territories above 55% (Manche 57.6%, Haute-Loire 56.9%, Hautes-Alpes 56.2%, Landes 55.7%) (table 2, p. 8-10).
3. A major change in management in January 2024: Health Insurance resumes targeting and sending invitations. The volume of invitations for 2024-2025 (10.6 M) is slightly lower than that of 2022-2023 (11.2 M), with organisational difficulties at the beginning of 2024 and still incomplete data (p. 2, 4).
4. Access tensions to mammography reported from the field: lengthening of delays, low density of radiologists in certain territories (Pays de la Loire, Guadeloupe), disaffection of young radiologists for senology, and possible reduction of slots dedicated to organised screening on online appointment platforms (p. 11).
5. A structural decline and a methodological blind spot: the decline has been steady since the mid-2010s and affects all age groups (p. 2, 6). Furthermore, screening carried out outside PNDOCS is not specifically coded; it represented ~18% of all screenings in 2021-2022, and a shift from the organised programme to individual screening remains to be estimated (p. 2-3, 11).

3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1. Conduct a starting territorial diagnosis by positioning its department via table 2 (p. 8-10) and map 1 (p. 7) in relation to the national average of 47.4% (2025), then prioritising the most disadvantaged sub-departmental territories.
2. Concentrate outreach actions on areas with low participation identified here (large urban centres such as Bouches-du-Rhône, Paris, small inner suburbs of Île-de-France; Guyana), where social and access barriers accumulate — necessarily complementing with an analysis of social inequalities (see DREES reference below, not covered by the report).
3. Mobilise open data for continuous monitoring via the Odissé portal (https://odisse.santepubliquefrance.fr) and the Breast Cancer space of Public Health France, in order to update the indicators without waiting for the annual report (p. 2, 12).
4. Anticipate and document supply tensions in senology in its territory (waiting times, number of accredited radiologists, online slots), the decrease in supply being identified as a plausible cause of the decline (p. 11) — feedback to be provided to the CRCDC and the ARS.
5. Adapt the message to the effects of the new invitation system : some women may have changed channels (mail/email/SMS) or switched to individual screening. Secure the relay from the general practitioner and information on full free access and appointment booking (jefaismondepistage.fr).
6. Unmet need to be addressed locally : the report provides neither analysis by social category nor characteristics of cancers detected post-reorganisation (announced "in perspective", p. 11). Cross-reference these results with inequality data and await the next performance reports before drawing any conclusions on the impact of the change in management.

4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the topic of screenings  ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/7-4-prevention-medicalisee-depistages-vaccinations

1. DREES — Cancer screening: modest individuals use it less often (Studies and Results No. 1367, February 2026). Completes the social blind spot of the report: participation in breast screening rises from 42% (the most modest decile) to 67% (the most affluent decile).
   🔗 https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/publications-communique-de-presse/etudes-et-resultats/260219-depistage-cancer-inégalités-sociales
2. IGAS — The organised screening of cancers in France (report, April 2024). Illuminates the issues of organisation, quality, and the fight against access inequalities at the very moment of the steering reform — useful for understanding the institutional context of the observed decline.
   🔗 https://igas.gouv.fr/sites/igas/files/2024-04/Le%20d%C3%A9pistage%20organis%C3%A9%20des%20cancers%20en%20France.pdf
3. National Cancer Institute (INCa) — The organised screening programme for breast cancers (resource page, updated 2026). Operational framework and tools available on the ground: the "going-to" system deployed since January 2024, mobile units, platform jefaismondepistage.fr.
   🔗 https://www.cancer.fr/professionnels-de-sante/prevention-et-depistages/depistage-et-detection-precoce/depistage-du-cancer-du-sein/le-programme-de-depistage-organise

5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1. What is the current participation rate and what should it be compared to?
   45.6% for 2024-2025 (compared to 46.6% in 2022-2023). To compare an odd year, note 47.4% in 2025 vs 48.5% in 2023 (p. 2, 6).
2. Who now sends the invitations?
   Since January 2024, it is the Health Insurance that targets and invites; the CRCDC ensures the follow-up of screened individuals (previously, the CRCDC did both) (p. 2).
3. Who is concerned by the programme?
   All women aged 50 to 74 without high risk, invited every two years for a bilateral mammogram and a clinical examination, with a second expert reading if the image is normal (p. 1).
4. Which areas are lagging the most?
   The lowest rates: Guyana (17.1%), Bouches-du-Rhône (28.4%), Paris (27.2%), the whole PACA region (33.4%) and Corsica (33.5%); the highest exceed 55% (Manche, Haute-Loire, Hautes-Alpes, Landes) (table 2, p. 8-10).
5. Why is participation declining?
   A long-term decline since the mid-2010s, to which are added in 2024 the possible effects of the new targeting, organisational start-up difficulties, and access tensions to mammography (p. 6, 11).
6. How many women are screened outside the programme?
   There is no specific code; activity outside PNDOCS is estimated at ~10% of the target population, and represented ~18% of all screenings in 2021-2022 (p. 2-3).
7. Where can updated data be found between two bulletins?
   On the open data portal Odissé (odisse.santepubliquefrance.fr) and the official site of Santé publique France (p. 2, 12).

6. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

Breast cancer and screening

Breast cancer is a serious illness.

It is the most common cancer in women.

Every year, about 61,000 women in France learn that they have this cancer.

There is a free screening.

Screening is used to find cancer very early.

When it is found early, it is treated better.

Every 2 years, women aged 50 to 74 receive an invitation.

They can have a mammogram.

A mammogram is an X-ray of the breasts.

This examination is free.

What this document says

Today, less than one in two women undergo this screening.

The figure is 45.6% for 2024 and 2025.

This figure has been declining for several years.

The number of women who undergo screening varies greatly by region.

In some areas, more than one in two do.

In other areas, very few women do.

For example, in French Guiana, only 17 women out of 100 do.

Since 2024, it is the Health Insurance that sends the invitations.

Previously, it was another organisation.

Sometimes, it is difficult to get an appointment.

There is a shortage of doctors to perform mammograms.

This may explain why fewer women undergo screening.

7. CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

• Literacy: The report is a technical document aimed at professionals; it does not provide tools for popularisation, but refers to public resources and easy-to-read materials via the INCa ecosystem.
• Empowerment: Absent from the document — no involvement of the women concerned in the production or interpretation of the data is described.
• Participation: Not addressed; the "participation" here refers to the rate of uptake, not a co-construction approach.
• Community health : Collective dimension presented from the population and territorial angle (departmental level), but not from the angle of local community dynamics.
• Ethics : The document demonstrates good methodological transparency (limits, uncertainties, reported non-consolidated data, p. 3, 11); however, social biases of recourse are not analysed.
• Human rights / equity : Access equity is implicitly at stake through territorial disparities, but the analysis of social inequalities is not conducted — to be supplemented by the DREES reference.
• Intersectorality : Illustrated by the collaboration between Public Health France / Cnam / CRCDC / Insee for the production of indicators (p. 3-4, 12).
• Partnership : The sharing of data between institutions is formalised (transmissions CRCDC and Cnam), but this is a statistical production partnership, not a partnership with the public.
• Fight against discrimination : The document does not explicitly mention discrimination; it presents territorial disparities without analysing their social determinants.

8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Scientific relevance : high. Institutional reference source (Public Health France, national agency), explicit methodology (standardisation by age, Insee ELP population, comparisons of odd years), very recent data for 2024-2025, and above all, an honest reporting of limits (partial invitation data, non-consolidated figures, effects of the reform not yet evaluated). The transitional nature of the data from the period is clearly acknowledged.

Operational relevance: high but indirect. The departmental table and the maps are directly usable for a territorial diagnosis. However, the document does not provide levers for action or an analysis of the determinants; it constitutes a data foundation to be cross-referenced with other resources to take action.

9. STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#OrganisedScreening #BreastCancer #Prevention #HealthInequalities #PublicHealth #MovingTowards #TerritorialHealth #healthpractices