© 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Publication of the International Union Against Cancer

Infrared imaging has frequently been used in the past to detect changes in skin surface temperature associated with breast cancer. Usually a 1–2° C elevation in skin surfacet em-perature is observed at the tumour periphery, and it has been proposed that this change is due to hypervascularity resulting from tumour-associated angiogenesis. In our study, we used the rat mammary adenocarcinoma 13762 MAT, a tumour that has been used to identify antiangiogenic drugs, to investigate whether infrared imaging can detect angiogenesis in malignant tumours. If successful, it was hoped that this technique would represent a simple, noninvasive, procedure for monitoring the activity of antiangiogenic drugs.  To read the rest of this article, click here to download the PDF file of this study.

Head JF, Wang F, Elliott RL.

Source

Elliott Mastology Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816.

Abstract

Our recent retrospective analysis of the clinical records of patients who had breast thermography demonstrated that an abnormal thermogram was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer and a poorer prognosis for the breast cancer patient. This study included 100 normal patients, 100 living cancer patients, and 126 deceased cancer patients. Abnormal thermograms included asymmetric focal hot spots, areolar and periareolar heat, diffuse global heat, vessel discrepancy, or thermographic edge sign. Incidence and prognosis were directly related to thermographic results: only 28% of the noncancer patients had an abnormal thermogram, compared to 65% of living cancer patients and 88% of deceased cancer patients. Further studies were undertaken to determine if thermography is an independent prognostic indicator. Comparison to the components of the TNM classification system showed that only clinical size was significantly larger (p = 0.006) in patients with abnormal thermograms. Age, menopausal status, and location of tumor (left or right breast) were not related to thermographic results. Progesterone and estrogen receptor status was determined by both the cytosol-DCC and immunocytochemical methods, and neither receptor status showed any clear relationship to the thermographic results. Prognostic indicators that are known to be related to tumor growth rate were then compared to thermographic results. The concentration of ferritin in the tumor was significantly higher (p = 0.021) in tumors from patients with abnormal thermograms (1512 +/- 2027, n = 50) compared to tumors from patients with normal thermograms (762 +/- 620, n = 21). Both the proportion of cells in DNA synthesis (S-phase) and proliferating (S-phase plus G2M-phase, proliferative index) were significantly higher in patients with abnormal thermograms. The expression of the proliferation-associated tumor antigen Ki-67 was also associated with an abnormal thermogram. The strong relationships of thermographic results with these three growth rate-related prognostic indicators suggest that breast cancer patients with abnormal thermograms have faster-growing tumors that are more likely to have metastasized and to recur with a shorter disease-free interval.

GARVEY SCOTT
This print of a thermographic image taken of an elephant was displayed by Kansas City Zoo veterinarian Kirk Suedmeyer.

The veterinarian at the Kansas City Zoo uses the toy — er, diagnostic tool — nearly every day. It’s a machine that produces thermograms of an animal’s body, showing temperature differentials in bright digital color.

You would expect an elephant’s ears to show up in blue because there’s less blood there to create heat. And you would expect the skull and abdomen to glow orange or red because that’s where the organs are.

But what if there is something strange? The thermogram can provide clues to tell zoo officials to take a closer look at something that may mean a health problem for the animal.

“We’ve been able to find things with the thermography unit that we didn’t even know were there,” Suedmeyer said. “And the animal may otherwise be acting fine.”

For example, the vet and zookeepers were aware that one of the elephants had a relatively small wound on the bottom of one of her feet. The vet staff was keeping it clean and free of infection.

But a thermogram of the elephant revealed that the inflammation extended several inches up her foot. That alerted the staff to monitor a potential problem and to watch to see if the condition was healing or getting worse.

Unusual warm spots may indicate infection or disease. A cold spot may indicate a cardiovascular problem such as poor circulation.

“We try to do as much preventative care as we can,” Suedmeyer said. “If we can catch something early on, it’s a lot easier to treat it.”

The thermography machine and a large wall monitor for the veterinary operating room at the zoo were a $15,000 gift from the Deramus Family Foundation. It was a luxury the zoo just could not afford to purchase.

Now the vet staff has an additional tool, along with traditional X-rays, blood tests and physical exams, to help keep the hundreds of exotic animals in its care healthy.

Suedmeyer already is creating a bank of images of zoo animals to keep on file. He recently e-mailed thermal images of an emu to the Milwaukee County Zoo in Wisconsin in advance of that animal being shipped there from Kansas City.

The thermography machine has been at the zoo just a couple of months, and Suedmeyer continues to explore its possibilities.

For example, what does it mean when one kangaroo’s nose registers cool while another’s shows up as warm? Thermograms may provide the answer, Suedmeyer said.

“If I do 100 kangaroos and 99 of them are one way, then maybe there’s a problem with the other one.”

To reach Matt Campbell, call 816-234-7745 or send e-mail to mcampbell@kcstar.com.

Posted on Mon, Jan. 17, 2011 10:56 PM

Read more

Durham, NC (PRWEB) August 16, 2010

Researchers from Duke University have identified a non-invasive test that may prevent death in premature babies. Premature birth occurs in up to 10 percent of all pregnancies in the USA.

One of the most devastating conditions that can occur during this stressful period is necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), in which the intestines of the baby can become infected and die. This imaging test, published in the Journal of Surgical Radiology, may allow physicians to diagnose this condition earlier and start treatment before it threatens the lives of these preemies.

“Improved understanding of the relationships between skin temperature and perfusion may provide insight into the pathophysiology of NEC,” says Dr. Henry Rice, lead author of the study and chief of pediatric surgery at Duke University. The new imaging study, known as thermography, “is a non-invasive technique to measure skin temperature over the visible body simultaneously.”

This peer-reviewed study shows that thermography can monitor temperature changes in low birth weight infants. Premature infants susceptible to necrotizing enterocolitis have a decrease in overall abdominal skin temperature prior to becoming severely ill from infection. Premature infants monitored using this non-invasive test may be started on resuscitative therapy and antibiotics before the infection becomes life threatening and the intestines begin to die.

Thermography is an affordable technology that can be readily implemented in neonatal intensive care units. Future studies will further explore the role of this non-invasive imaging test and the utility it plays in early diagnosis and treatment of necrotizing enterocolitis.

This study was published in the Journal of Surgical Radiology, a peer-reviewed medical journal distributed to over 11,000 surgeons and radiologists around the world. Physicians and surgeons from major medical centers around the country serve on the journal’s Editorial Board.
Their expertise provides an authoritative validation of peer-reviewed scientific research that makes an important contribution to patient care. Learn more about this study and other medical advances at www.SurgRad.com.

The two techniques look at different things. Thermography looks at abnormal blood vessel formation, which is an early event in the life of a cancer. Mammography looks at masses (1 centimeter or larger) and calcification patterns, which are later developments.

Each has reliability in the recent literature of around 88 percent to 96 percent. Each misses tumors picked up by the other (perhaps as many as 10 percent). Mammography cannot visualize tiny tumors with new vessels, which show up on thermography. Conversely, tumors large enough to show up on mammography don’t always have thermographically abnormal vessels.

So, each technique is weak where the other is strong. The techniques are complementary. It is not a case of either one or the other.

One of the reasons for moving the starting age to 50 for mammograms was the vast number of negative breast biopsies for calcifications. I suspect, in my personal experience, I did 20 benign biopsies for calcification for every cancer we picked up. That is way too many, but abnormal calcifications are pretty common — and frequently benign.

Personally, I think the most prudent course for a woman to take is to get a baseline mammogram somewhere between the age of 40 and 50 (unless she has a high-risk family history, in which case earlier is better) to be reasonably sure larger lumps are not seen, and get a baseline thermography to look for early blood-vessel formation.

If both are negative, then follow with annual thermography looking for new vessel formation, with mammography every few years to look for solid lumps. Less frequent mammography means less radiation and mechanical pressure.

That regimen allows a woman to take advantage of the strengths of each technique without undue risks from radiation or unnecessary biopsy and, it seems to me, to maximize cost-benefit considerations.

— Robin A. Bernhoft, M.D., practices medical toxicology in Ojai.

Women Have A Safe Alternative to Mammograms to Maintain Annual Screenings

For immediate release from the American College of Clinical Thermology.

 Women of all ages received good news with the recent revision of the government recommendations for screening mammography.  The US Department of Health and Human Services released their findings and recommendations that screening mammography should now be started at age 50 and performed bi-annually. Up until now, screening was recommended on an annual basis at age 40; this new recommendation has created renewed controversy as doctors have concerns about reducing the number of mammograms that would be clinically justified and indicated..  It takes years for most cancers to develop to the stage that they can be detected with mammogram or ultrasound (dense enough for location and biopsy) so Breast Thermography or Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI) is ideally placed as an alternative screening tool to identify changes over time in the ‘early’ development stages, before there is more advanced pathology that can be detected with other tests. If changes for the better are to be made, then the recent recommendations of the Preventative Services Task Force will establish the foundation of a more affective screening program which should integrate other types of safe testing.  Of the various testing options Breast Thermography or Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging (DITI) offers the most promise for screening the younger age group women.  

To understand the arguments and issues involved with the new recommendations, we need to understand the difference between ‘screening mammography’ and ‘diagnostic mammography’:

‘Screening’ mammography has been performed annually on healthy women from the ages of 40 to 70 and is aimed at identifying suspicious findings, which justify further investigation. ‘Diagnostic’ mammography is performed on patients who have one or more risk factors, clinical symptoms, or most commonly a palpable lump. There is little argument about mammography’s role as the ‘gold standard’ for

evaluating suspicious symptoms but the question was, can we still justify subjecting women without symptoms to ‘screening’ mammography ?  The answer was NO.

The federal department of health and human services  task force says that “the modest benefit of screening mammograms must be weighed against the harms… which are nearly cut in half when mammograms are performed every other year  but the benefits remain the same”. It needs to be pointed out that the recommendations of the task force are not intended for women at increased risk for breast cancer who should continue to be referred for diagnostic mammography by their doctors when appropriate, and on a case by case basis. It is interesting to note that The United States is currently the only country that routinely screens women below age 50 and extends its screening practice by taking two or more mammograms per breast annually in women over age 50. This contrasts with the more restrained European practice of a single view every two to three years. The evidence concludes that while there is a justifiable role for mammography to play in a breast cancer screening program that role is very different from the one currently in place.

For over 20 years Breast Thermography is being used increasingly  by women throughout the US, and it has been rapidly gaining acceptance by doctors as an additional tool in the early diagnosis of breast disease. FDA registered since 1984, Thermography is an adjunctive diagnosic test being offered by hundreds of clinics in all states. A list of certified thermography clinics can be found at the The American College of Clinical Thermology website at :   http://www.thermologyonline.org/Breast/breast_thermography_clinics.htm. Thermography is 100% safe, has no radiation, does not touch the breast, and only takes a couple of minutes. A positive or suspicious thermal study will indicate medical necessity for a mammogram, ultrasound or other tests. The thermal findings will increase the sensitivity and specificity of most other tests by targeting an area of the breast showing dysfunction and providing decision making information in women that would not have otherwise been tested.

Early detection is aimed at prevention and if early changes are detected then we have an opportunity to intervene and change the outcome. The earlier an abnormality is detected the better the treatment options will be, resulting in a better outcome. There are no contraindications for DITI, it is totally non-invasive, no radiation of any type, and no contact with the body so it can ‘do no harm’. DITI is positioned as the ideal screening test for women of all ages but particularly for the 30 to 50 age group. The best possible plan is to use every appropriate test adjunctively to get the highest detection rates without generating additional or unnecessary invasive testing. It would be unfortunate for a patient to forgo a necessary mammogram that was justified, and any decision should be made between the patient and her doctors based on individual history, symptoms and test results.

The principle of informed consent in medicine is ignored if women are not informed of the evidence relating to any risks of a test and if women more readily consent to annual mammograms because they have been given ‘misinformation’ this is as bad as obtaining consent by deliberately blocking valid information. Women are entitled to know the full range of responsible opinion about the benefits, the risks, and the many uncertainties of mammography.

The government task force are to be applauded for presenting the evidence for women and their doctors to be able to make better informed decisions about breast screening.

As reported, the scientific and medical evidence indicates that:

No ‘screening’ mammography is justified for women under the age of 50.

A baseline screening mammogram may be justified at age 50 and bi-annually thereafter.

Accountability and responsibility should be considered in regard to all radiation exposure and the accumulative biological effects.

Reducing ionizing radiation exposure from all other sources whenever possible should be practiced.

Up-to-Date and accurate information must be given to patients for informed consent.

Other non invasive tests should be promoted as part of a breast screening program.

Thermography, Ultrasound and MRI should be further explored, adapted and integrated.

The Record

Alternative to mammograms

In view of the recent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations concerning new guidelines for having mammograms, some vital information for women needs to be presented. The new guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations.

It has always been known that mammograms carry a significant risk of causing and spreading breast cancer, although this has largely been ignored by mainstream medicine. They can cause breast cancer through repeated irradiation of the breasts and spread cancer by the fracturing of the fibrous capsule surrounding the tumor through compression of the breasts.

A 1999 meta-analysis, “Is Screening for Breast Cancer with Mammography Justifiable?,” was published in The Lancet, the United Kingdom’s premier medical journal, in 2000. It said, “Screening for breast cancer with mammography is unjustified.” This study showed that “for every 1,000 females having mammograms over a 12-year period, the life of one was saved, while the total number of deaths increased by six.” The United States continued to screen with mammography until the new recommendations appeared in the Nov. 17 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Many women are asking themselves, “What should I do now?” The answer is simple: thermography, or digital infrared thermal imaging. This is a true “screening” test that is absolutely 100 percent safe, since it does not require contact with the breasts or use ionizing radiation. It has been approved by the FDA for breast cancer screening since 1982.

Thermography employs an infrared camera that measures the physiology of the breast, not the structures within the breast, as does mammography. The physiology is function rather than structure, more specifically inflammation. Inflammation at any tissue depth will be recorded by the sympathetic fibers in the neurological supply of nerves to that area. This neural information will then be processed through the central nervous system, which will then cause a sympathetic (automatic) response in the area of the skin corresponding to the affected site. Thermographically, the area of hyperthermia seen at the surface of the skin is due to a decrease of sympathetic motor tone (reduced sympathetic function) allowing increased blood flow through the postganglionic gates serving that area. And, all this happens before the presence of a tumor.

In addition, thermography can pick up breast disease eight to 10 years earlier than mammography can pick up a tumor. This happens long before tumor formation, whereas a tumor of a rather large size must be present for mammography to be effective. The bottom line is thermography is preventive, and mammography is no more than “early detection” of an already present tumor.

If any further studies are required for diagnosis, breast ultrasound and breast MRI are the tests of choice, since they are completely safe and do not employ radiation.

Women 21 or older should screen for cancer by doing breast self-examination, clinical breast examination annually and at each doctor’s visit, and thermography.

Alan L. Woods. 

Wyckoff, Nov. 17

The writer, a physician, is director of natural health education for the Institute of Natural Health and Wellness in Wyckoff.

Readers Comments:

Welcome attack on ‘holy grail’

Speaking from the vantage point of a senior citizen, I am thrilled that the U.S. Preventive Task Services Force has issued new guidelines for mammogram screenings.

In the past, whenever I tried to have a conversation with my doctors about the risks of mammography, my questions were answered with anger and belligerence as if I were violating a sacred holy grail.

Now, women can feel free to ask such questions as: Will repeated radiation exposures to the breast pose a cancer risk for premenapausal women under 50?

What about so-called indolent cancers that will never spread and tiny cancers that might go away by themselves? Is it possible that I could be subjected to unnecessary surgery, radiation and chemotherapy and really be healthy?