Uselessness of thermal imaging for detecting breast cancer
 

Prompted by a lively discussion in chat...

Infrared Thermography Fails to Predict Breast Malignancy

Infrared thermography did not accurately predict malignancy and produced an unacceptably high false-positive rate in women with radiologic abnormalities requiring breast biopsy in a 2-year prospective study.

The No-Touch Breast Scan (NTBS) is a noninvasive, non–radiation-based imaging tool that measures and compares thermal abnormalities in breasts using dual infrared cameras and computer analysis. It generates a score that reflects blood flow patterns based on the theory of tumor angiogenesis.

The technology is being explored as an alternative to radiation-based imaging in women at risk for breast cancer and as a way to reduce the number of benign biopsies, Dr. Andrea V. Barrio said during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

This study evaluated NTBS screening as a predictor of breast cancer in patients undergoing minimally invasive breast biopsy for suspicious mammogram, ultrasound, or MRI findings.

But the results demonstrated that NTBS "cannot be used as a successful adjunct to mammography, nor can it replace any of the screening modalities that are standard practice. Mammography remains the gold standard for breast cancer screening," said Dr. Barrio, an attending breast surgeon at Bryn Mawr (Pa.) Hospital.

"I think the utility of NTBS remains unclear. For the purposes of our study, NTBS could not discriminate between benign and malignant lesions in the low-specificity mode, and the high-sensitivity mode resulted in an unacceptable number of false-positive results," she added in an interview. More at the Oncology Report.

That study was, presumably, undertaken by people with yer actual medical training, rather than a qualification in flogging herbs from an online degree mill in a Caribbean tax haven.

Well, I'm glad we've cleared that up... whatever it was http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/stung.png

Well not really http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.png

You know those anti-vax people? There is a similar group that are anti-routine breast screening. That's part of what was in chat. It came up as part of a discussion about woo and a local woo shop offering Quantum Breast screening no radiation, no doctors either I think.

I don't think it's gained a lot of attention in Australia but has in many parts of Europe and the UK. An article about a book about breast cancer screening being unjustified

Quantum Dot Breast Cancer Screening Bra is one of the examples and another in morrie's post.

So there is a bit more to it http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.png

It seems that the alternative, discussed in the OP has been shown to be without merit.

However, how does conventional mammography stack up? How many lives are saved, compared to false positives (requiring invasive testing, or worse)?

I am not a disinterested observer of things relating to breast cancer screening as I had breast cancer detected by a routine screen. I was screened through the programme because my mother had been diagnosed with breast cancer. (Completely different type of cancer as it turned out). If there is anything suspect found on the screening mammogram, a second series of tests are carried out within a short period of time. There were 25 women at the second clinic with me and 17 of them were found to be positive for breast cancer requiring further treatment. Three had non-malignant tumours and the other five I'm not sure about. We were all there all day. I was the last patient for the day so I could count. I don't know how many mammograms were carried out to get those numbers of people to the second clinic. While it's anecdotal, chatting amongst a small group for almost a whole day, none had any idea until the routine scan produced a result. That was through the state screening programme in SA.

What is difficult to assess is the ultimate value. Here, they are free from a certain age, but later on in the process of further treatment, I was surprised how many young women were being treated that wouldn't have been part of the initial screening programme, but fall under the programme for ongoing screening.

Breastscreen SA produced a report in 2008 20 Year Report 1989-2008 With trend data for 1989-2004-pdf has some good data, but is once again, subject to the sort of statistical interpretation discussed in another thread recently. As it covers 20 years, there would be some improvements in technology over the same period indicated by increasing positive results. The programme, as far as I know still uses standard mammograms as the first stage.

As against the other methods now available such MRI, PET I don't there's any dispute that these are excellent scanning methods. The dispute arises over thermal imaging techniques carried out by non-medically qualified practitioners. Would need someone with more access than I have to medical journals for that information. I know there are a number of papers about the technique, but how many about the dodgy alternative "health" industry - I don't know.

Does the alternative "health" industry produce papers?

The No-Touch Breast Scan (NTBS) is a noninvasive, non–radiation-based imaging tool
--------------
Non–radiation-based??? I would guess that it is based on the infra-red radiation emitted...

Screening methods also depend on the density of breast tissue.

> Uselessness of thermal imaging for detecting breast cancer

There is absolutely no medical or physical reason why thermal imaging should work for detecting cancer. It is largely a measure of blood flow. Some cancers have a high rate of blood flow and some have a low rate of blood flow. But there are plenty of other non-cancer reasons why the rate of blood flow should be locally higher or lower.

From (spoof account ) can't do campbell ‏@cantdocampbell We only told Cancer Council about axing Breast Screen on Friday. Notice how we like to do bad shit on a Friday…



Updated August 05, 2012 13:08:26


"Queensland Health Minister Lawrence Springborg has moved to hose down concerns over the State Government's restructure of Breastscreen Queensland.

The Government has announced plans to decentralise the service, giving the responsibility for mobile breast-screening vans and relief radiographers to individual hospitals and health boards.

... "

http://bit.ly/OSJxKf

Depends on who does the tests. If you pay for the tests, the results are pretty good. If you go through the free screening system, you can end up with more false negatives.

Odd.

Evidence?

I think the answer lies in the type of tests each place does. In paying for the tests, you're likely to have ultrasound as well as mammogram, whereas the free ones are just mammogram, which isn't suitable for all women of the target age group (differing breast tissue density etc).

:/ - screening mammograms and diagnostic mammograms are quite different as ilago mentioned, ultrasound is only used to determine between cyst or solid mass.

So, I'm curious, what are people paying for as opposed to getting for free (that's not the thing mentioned in the OP...)?

All I know is what I was told when I needed screening *shrugs*