Thermography

huguet5

Has anybody had a breast thermogram and what was your experience with it?

CrunchyPoodleMama

I had it done soon after I discovered a palpable lump. The thermogram very clearly showed the entire lump area as very red, but most of both breasts at the time were showing as red/orange, which the doctor who analyzed it said was indicative of fibrocystic disease, not invasive cancer.

As it turns out, I was sort of in between... I did have a lot of fibrocystic disease at the time, but also had DCIS. So, basically, the thermograph was spot-on... the MD who interpreted it was not.

Have you done a search here on thermography yet? There are some good threads about it on this forum.

huguet5

I am brand new to this site- I will check it out- thank you

CrunchyPoodleMama

No problem - and welcome!

thenewme

Hi Huguet5,

Welcome to the site.  You'll find some real proponents of thermography here, but you're wise to seek out more information. 

From what I read, some of the reasons certain people "like" thermograms is that they are easy, fun, painless, give nice colorful pretty pictures,etc.  Nobody ever provides evidence that they are ACCURATE OR RELIABLE as a substitute for mammograms (and nobody claims mammograms are perfect by any means!)

I've posted many times about thermography, and I'll paste one post here:

The ACS specifically says that thermography is NOT a substitute for mammograms. Additionally, yes it is FDA approved, but it's approved for ADJUNCTIVE breast cancer screening, which is vastly different from an alternative! Anyone looking for alternatives would be well suited to do some careful research before making decisions that could affect their diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

Directly from the American Cancer Society website:

=============QUOTE================(emphasis mine)

Thermography (thermal imaging)

Thermography is a way to measure and map the heat on the surface of the breast using a special heat-sensing camera. It is based on the idea that the temperature rises in areas with increased blood flow and metabolism, which could be a sign of a tumor.

Thermography has been around for many years, and some scientists are still trying to improve the technology to use it in breast imaging. But no study has ever shown that it is an effective screening tool for finding breast cancer early. It should not be used as a substitute for mammograms.

Newer versions of this test are better able to find very small temperature differences. They may prove to be more accurate than older versions, and are now being studied to find out if they might be useful in finding cancer.

Best of luck, Huguet5!

CrunchyPoodleMama

Most of what thenewme said is correct, although I don't know of anyone who choose thermography because it's "fun" or "colorful," but rather because it can indicate invasive cancer several years before mammogram can detect it in some cases, and also because, unlike mammography, it's not exposing your breasts to radiation.

One point to add is that, as with mammography, it's most useful when there is a baseline thermogram done, then routine follow-up thermograms so that any changes can be noted. I wish I'd known about thermography in my 20's so I could have gotten a baseline thermogram.

And, as I indicated above, a thermogram is only as good as the medical team evaluating it. And btw, if your thermograph indicates a suspicious area but mammogram doesn't pick up anything, I urge you to get it biopsied. Thermography can pick up certain cancers several years before mammography can. Thus thermography has the reputation as giving false positives, when in fact it's suspected that they're just picking up invasive cancer before a mammogram is able to.

crazy4carrots

Julia -- Just want to add that an ultrasound should follow the mammo.  US frequently picks up tumours that mammos miss (but of course US cannot identify it as malignant or benign). Thermograms do not pinpoint the spot of a tumour, so having a biopsy would be difficult (I see a vision of the breast as a pin cushion -- ouch!).

Thermography is getting a lot of attention and units are starting to be advertised here. Like thenewme, I worry that some women think a thermogram can take the place of other screening methods and will choose a painless therm over a rather painful mammo. 

LJ13-2

Crunchy said, "...it can indicate invasive cancer several years before mammogram can detect it..."

Please cite some data on that. I don't know of any randomized, double-blind, large scale study supporting that claim. It is popularly claimed by those who push thermograms, but no one can ever support the claim.

thenewme

I've been thinking about thermography and wondering whether there have been any recent studies, and I just can't find anything at all that lives up to the hype of the headlines.  Can anyone point us to some data that suggest thermograms should be routinely recommended for women in lieu of mammograms, or that it can indicate invasive cancer years before a mammography can? 

Here's an interesting and recent assessment I found [clickable link below]: 

Emerging Controversies in Breast Imaging: Is There a Place for Thermography? 

thenewme

Hi Crunchypoodlemama,

In reading your biography information, I see that after discovering a 2 cm breast lump, you didn't want a mammogram and so went for a thermogram that indicated fibrocystic changes unlikely to be cancer.  Shortly after that you had a mammogram that DID suggest DCIS, which was then confirmed.

Doesn't this make yours a perfect case AGAINST the use of thermography as a screening tool for breast cancer?  Especially since you're young and fibrocystic breasts are very common in young women?  

DesignerMom

I was one of the women who had yearly mammos (14 in 14 years) and they did NOT pick up my cancer.  I found the lump while bathing.  Only then did they do an US and biopsy.  My BS said it could have been growing 5 to 10 years and that something like 30% of cancers are NOT picked up by mammos.  I wonder if the thermography might have picked up the cancer earlier.  I also think it is important to keep in mind the statement that doctors often make to us "there has been no proof that this is effective, reliable etc...."  When I ask them has there been proof that it is NOT effective, they usually clarify to say that there have been no scientific studies to prove it.  Often, less expensive therapies such as nutrition and thermography don't warrant huge expensive trials.  That doesn't mean they are not valid or effective, just not "scientifically proven".  Unfortunately many of us have to research as best we can and then go with our gut and roll the dice.

mollyann

Oh, Designer Mom, I had the same situation. I had false negatives on regular mammograms for years.

Even when I showed the doctor surgeon exactly where the lump was, the mammo could not detect it. I had years of radiation exposure for nothing.

*Edited to add:  I admire how much learning and research you have done.

CrunchyPoodleMama

Hi Crunchypoodlemama,

In reading your biography information, I see that after discovering a 2 cm breast lump, you didn't want a mammogram and so went for a thermogram that indicated fibrocystic changes unlikely to be cancer.  Shortly after that you had a mammogram that DID suggest DCIS, which was then confirmed.

Doesn't this make yours a perfect case AGAINST the use of thermography as a screening tool for breast cancer?  Especially since you're young and fibrocystic breasts are very common in young women?  

That's a great question, and after I found out that I did have DCIS, I was crestfallen and lost any faith in thermography at the time.

What made me rethink was seeing thermograms of other DCIS patients on the Internet. They looked very similar to mine. I called and asked for a copy of my thermogram, and when I received it, I realized that not only my lump was blazing red, but there was very clear vascular activity showing that was not showing in the "lit-up" fibrocystic-but-benign breast.

It dawned on me that the thermogram was perfectly accurate... the MD who analyzed my thermogram was not. (Well, maybe he "sort of" was, in that he said I did not have invasive cancer... which was true.) That's why I said above that a thermogram is only as good as the medical professionals evaluating it.

One thing I will say too is that heavy caffeine drinkers (like I was) are a lot more likely to have inaccurate or difficult-to-read thermograms. My thermography tech speculated that I consumed a lot of caffeine (at the time, I was drinking 6 or more 16-ounce bottles of Diet Coke every day; sometimes a LOT more - yeah, gee, wonder how I got DCIS?!).

The tech told me to cut the caffeine (except for maybe a cup of coffee a day) and come back in three months for a more accurate thermogram. Sadly, I didn't do that; I kept chugging the Diet Coke (and of course, didn't know about iodine back then) and the lump grew very rapidly (to about 5cm at the time of diagnosis).

Anyway... all that is to say that, I'm actually more of a believer in thermography than I was before I got my supposedly wrong one. But, just like with mammography or any other diagnostic imaging, it's critical that the team analyzing it know exactly what they're doing.

thenewme

Hi Crunchypoodlemama,

You said "...I realized that not only my lump was blazing red, but there was very clear vascular activity showing that was not showing in the "lit-up" fibrocystic-but-benign breast. It dawned on me that the thermogram was perfectly accurate... the MD who analyzed my thermogram was not."

It's frightening that a medical doctor  presumably trained in analyzing and interpreting thermograpy results was unable to see what you describe as blazingly clear vascular activity where your palpable lump was located -- yikes!  From what I read, one of the big issues with thermography is the inconsistency in interpreting results, but I figured the difficulty would be with very subtle abnormalities and not glaringly obvious issues like yours.

Do you know how to find out whether a thermographer is competent or not?

How does the education, training, certification, etc. differ between a mammographer and a thermographer?  

o2bhealthy

I had a full body thermogram in September shortly after completing my treatment.  I really had a hard time believing my doctors when they said I was NED yet they had not run any tests or scans to validate their claims. 

My thermogram showed that my thyroid was under functioning (blue) and the radiologist who interpreted the scan recommended an US.  Luckily my NP decided to follow that advise and we found two SMALL nodules on my Thyroid that had micro calcification's.   A biopsy revealed that the nodules were papillary cancer.  When I met with the Endocrine doc he kept asking, "and how did you find this???"  My nodules are less in 1/2 cm in size (earring stud size?) He was very surprised that we were able to catch the cancer so soon and felt that without the thermogram, it would have been 9 months to a year before the nodule would have grown large enough to be palpable.  Also by finding it so early I am able to keep half of my thyroid and will not need to have RAI therapy or supplements.   Do I believe in thermograms, OH YEA!!!!  

My thyroidectomy is scheduled for Nov 23rd

LtotheK

Wow, fascinating re: full-body thermogram. How do you even pursue one?  My hospital doesn't do PET scans for early stage BC, I'd love to pursue the thermography.

As for ultrasounds, like thermography, so much rests in the reading.  I can't bring myself to really dig up what I found recently on my mammogram/ultrasound reports:  my tumor has been showing up for a while, and they call it "probably benign".  They've been biopsying everything but.

Nan56143

Here is a link and if you look at the right side of the page on this article, it says find a center near you. I am almost certain that insurance will not pay for the thermograms. My GYN recommended that I get one since I refuse to have a mammogram ever again.

http://www.breastthermography.com/

edited to add this link..

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/the-best-breast-test-the-_b_752503.html

o2bhealthy

MHP70 - my insurance would not cover the thermograms, my full body was $400, for breasts I think it is $150???  Here is the link for the center I went to:  http://www.nazthermal.com/

My oncologist would not order scans for my early stage BC either.  I don't trust easily when it comes to western medicine and for my piece of mind, I needed to know that at that moment in time, based on information available to me, there was no evidence of disease.  That is what the thermal imagining gave me.  Piece of mind.  Even with this new dx with the thyroid cancer, I am still at piece.  Now I will not forgo traditional imagining, and just recently had my 1yr f/u MRI.  But I will admit I do not have the scan anxiety I had last time while waiting for the results. 

asschercut

I am having a hard time finding a thermography center in Melbourne. I really don't want to have another mammo. I am well over due for one - I haven't had one since I had my cancer diagnosed...last July. My lump was so high on my chest wall that the mammo couldn't pick it up. They tried squishing it down, to no avail...which was extremely painful, and finally decided to just give me an ultrasound...and biopsy, to confirm what the mammogram could not. I've had several ultrasounds since, but no mammogram. I had some calcifications, in my right breast, when I had my mammo last July, and I was told they were nothing to worry about......but I had to keep an eye on them, with yealry mammograms.  The ultrasound doesn't pick up on those, so I need to have a thermogram or mammogram. I just don't want to have to go through the pain of another mammo. My BS called me personally at home to make sure l have my yearly check-up...and my oncologist sent me another letter the other day expressing his concern that I follow through with my yearly mammo....as I've avoided it long enough. I have to make a decision soon.

Victoria

DesignerMom

asschercut-  Like you, the mammogram did not pick up my cancer (14 in 14 years).  I found the lump myself, confirmed with an US then biopsy.  My BS said the cancer could have been growing 5 to 10 years.  Therefore, I have NO faith in mammograms and don't want to be exposed to unecessary radiation.  I have heard MRIs are more accurate and don't have radiation, they may have something else, not sure.  If you can't find thermography, perhaps an MRI would be a better option?

asschercut

Thanks for that DM, I forgot all about an MRI. You're right...it is a safe and painless procedure. I remember using the MRI during planning. I'll ask my onc on my next appointment, in late December.

We need to discuss MRI's more often...because some of us don't have access to thermograms. And some of us are tooooo chicken to have a mammo. My cancer bed is way too high for a mammogram.

Victoria

o2bhealthy

Victoria - I just had an MRI and other then a fear a confined spaces (Valium works well for that) it is a simple procedure.   I had ONE post surgery mammo and told my onc that there is absolutely NO REASON for me to ever have another mammo.  I  had a BMX with implants and there is no enough 'surface' tissue remaining to warrent a mammo. That and the fact that the mammo does not get views of the chest wall and higher up in the chest/axillary bed, it seems like a waste of time and money when there are better options (MRI or thermogram).  I was amazed when my onc actually agreed with me   There is always a first time

Good luck with your doctor...

asschercut

Oh to be healthy: Nice name! I actually called up two thermogram centres...and spoke with the techs, but unfortunately, both places do NOT do thermal breast imaging.

 My onc spoils me if I grovel and make a booboo face - so I think he'll be cool with the MRI.

Thanks again ladies...x

Victoria