 |
Your Health is Our Commitment
Thermography for Breast Cancer Screening
© By Martha M. Grout, M.D., M.D.(H), USA
Republished with permission from EXPLORE! Publishing, 928 541-1920
or 800 320-6035, P.O. Box 11510, Prescott, AZ 86304
Cancer cells are different than healthy cells. For one, they use a lot more sugar. For another, they give off a lot more heat.
Chemical and blood vessel activity in the area surrounding
a developing breast cancer is almost always higher than in the
normal breast. Cancer cells need an abundant supply of nutrients
to maintain their growth and this increased blood flow can
increase the surface temperatures of the breast. When a tumor
is forming, it develops its own blood supply to feed its accelerated
growth, a process known as malignant angiogenesis.
Pre-cancerous tissues can start this process well in advance of
the cells becoming malignant.
Thermography measures the skin's autonomic response to
that inflammation – its "heat signature".
The technology converts infrared radiation emitted from
the skin surface into electrical impulses that are visualized in
color. The spectrum of colors indicates an increase or decrease
in the amount of infrared radiation being emitted from the
body surface.
Professionals look for asymmetry in the heat pattern.
In other words, how might one breast differ from another?
 |
 |
 |
| Baseline |
3 Months |
6 Months |
This patient was age 37 when her first baseline thermogram
showed a slight hyperthermic asymmetry in the upper right breast.
The follow-up 3 months later shows the pattern had become more
well defined. A third thermogram shows significant changes. Mammography
was performed at this stage; the mammographic findings
were inconclusive. The fifth comparative thermographic study
at 12 months shows the temperature differential (hyperthermic
asymmetry) has increased.
A repeat mammogram was performed which clearly showed
a small calcification (1 mm) at one o'clock. Within one week
a lumpectomy had been performed with good margins and the
pathology confirmed as a malignant carcinoma (DCIS). [1]
The August 2007 issue of Radiology bemoans the
growing number of mammography centers across the
United States that are closing down. Radiologists blame
low reimbursement from the insurance companies and a
frightening degree of liability.
With mammograms, the false negative reading rates
(not detecting cancers) range from 10% to 40%.
According to the 2002 Breast Cancer Study, issued by
the Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA),
internists were named in 7% of the surveyed failure-to-diagnose
breast cancer suits brought during the 1990s. Family
physicians were named in 11% of cases and gynecologists in
29%. Radiologists topped the list, however, being named in
40% of all failure-to-diagnose breast cancer claims.
That observation has not been lost on future generations
of radiologists, many of whom are avoiding mammography.
Mammography has not proved to be a flawless screening
tool. It has a difficult time giving a good reading in
women with dense breasts. It exposes women year after
year to radiation. As every woman knows who has undergone
one, it hurts to have breast tissue squished between
two pieces of metal. And there is the argument that compressing
cancerous tissue will just spread the malignancy.
Researchers have long warned that the compressive
force used to obtain useable mammograms may be a
contributing factor to breast cancer:
The British standard for the force used to squeeze the breast
as flat as possible corresponds to placing twenty 1 kilogram
bags of sugar on each breast. Researchers [at the University of
Aberdeen, Scotland] fear that this force may be excessive and
enough to dislocate and spread any existing cancer cells. Animal
experiments have shown that the number of cancer sites can
increase by as much as 80% when tumors are manipulated
mechanically. A recent study in Malmo, Sweden found that
the death rate from breast cancer among women under 55 was
29% higher in a group which had been screened with mammography
than in the unscreened control group. [2]
There is mounting evidence that the x-rays from
repeated mammograms induce cancer. Dr. John W.
Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing
radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could
be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the
ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays
and other medical and dental sources. [3]
"Since a mammogram is basically an x-ray (radiation) of the
breast, I do not recommend mammograms to my patients for
two reasons: 1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams
correctly, therefore limiting the procedure's effectiveness. Even the
man who developed this technique stated on national television
that only about six radiologists in the United States could read
them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to
an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent." [4]
What other options are there?
Digital mammography is a mammography system in which
x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays
into electric signals. Radiologists find that, like mammograms,
it also produces many false positives.
Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is another
option. In younger women, this approach offers two advantages:
the lack of ionizing radiation and the capability for
enhanced imaging of dense breasts. However, this mode has a
very high false-positive rate, is expensive, and requires specialized
apparatus should a biopsy be necessary.
Thermography is a non-invasive, fifteen minute test. It does
not use radiation, does not compress breast tissue, and it is
better than mammography at early detection of breast function
abnormalities. It has a lot going for it. So why is thermography
not more widely practiced?
Thermography debuted in the 1970s as a modern technique,
but it was actually first mentioned by Hippocrates in
480 BC. A slurry of mud was spread over the patient. Those
areas which dried first were presumed to be "hot" and to
indicate pathology of the organs underlying them. In the
1800s, William Herschel was the first to recognize that "dark
heat" was emitted and that it behaved like light, could be
both reflected and refracted under the right circumstances.
His son, John, made an image using solar radiation, focusing
the sun's rays onto a suspension of carbon particles in alcohol.
He called this image a "thermogram". Sensitive healers
have been able to detect this heat signature using their own
body sensors for thousands of years.
In the 1950s, the military began to use infrared monitoring
systems to follow night time troop movements. In
1956, Ray Lawson, MD published a brief article describing
a thermocouple device which he used in cases of suspected
breast cancer as a diagnostic tool. He found an increased
temperature signature of between 3.5º and 1.3º in a series of
patients with subsequently proven breast cancer. [5]
When the technology was in its infancy, "eyeballing" the
images was the only way to detect abnormalities or asymmetries,
and controls and protocols were not always followed.
It is little surprise, then, that an article published in CA, A
Cancer Journal for Clinicians, concluded, "We have found
little evidence to indicate that clinical thermography lowers
the stage at detection, and neither does a positive thermogram
in screening seem to have a strong predictive value." [6]
When the thermogram was thought to have given a "false
positive", in other words, the thermogram was positive but
no tumor was found, this finding was interpreted to mean
that the test was inaccurate.
These early researchers were looking for a tool which
would be capable of diagnosing breast cancer. What
they apparently failed to realize is that thermography
will never be capable of diagnosing breast cancer – that
it is only under the microscope that cancer can actually
be diagnosed. Thermography is a functional test, measuring
a heat signature produced by increased vascularity.
This may be due to cancer, but it may also be due
simply to inflammation without cancer. Mammography
cannot diagnose cancer either – it can only diagnose a
physical or structural abnormality. The advantage of the
thermogram is that we can measure inflammation at an
early stage – perhaps even before cancer (a disease of
inflammation) has a chance to develop.
In 1972, a position paper was published by the
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in
which was stated that thermography was a viable
method as a diagnostic procedure in the area of pathology
of the human breast. In 1982, the FDA published
its approval and classification of thermography as an
adjunctive diagnostic screening procedure for the
detection of breast cancer.
In the 1990s, significant work was done by the military,
in an effort to translate their work with infra-red
imaging into the medical field. [7,8]
The Breast Cancer Detection and Demonstration
Project (BCDDP) is a multi-center study performed
from 1973-79, and was aimed at demonstrating
whether thermography could replace mammography
or breast examination as a sole screening tool. Unfortunately,
there were significant protocol violations,
environmental controls were ignored, and many of
the personnel who collected the data were untrained
in thermography technique, in addition to which
there were no established reading protocols. Thus the
data collected were poor, many of the images were
unreadable, and interpretations were seriously open to
question.
The more thermograms turned in so-called false
positives, the more suspicion was placed on thermography.
Although a decade later many of those "false
positive" women were found to have developed breast
cancer, the establishment had already spoken, declaring
thermography a failure.
Meanwhile, the insurance industry had turned against
thermography as well. It is tempting to speculate that it was
because juries could clearly see the physiological component
of pain and injury due to car accidents, job injuries, and
a host of other tort related law suits, making it somewhat
more difficult to deny claims related to stress injury.
Eventually, lobbying efforts at the American Medical
Association's House of Delegates and at Medicare, brought
about the removal of thermography coverage by insurance
companies. Thermography was viewed as a competitive
tool to mammography. To this day, the American Cancer
Society still promotes only mammography.
International writings on the subject ask questions about
mammography that we do not see in the American press.
The major, surprising finding of the Canadian National
Breast Screening Study was that there is no evidence that
screening for breast cancer with mammography is effective
for women under 50 years of age. Not surprisingly, this
conclusion has been vehemently attacked by American
radiologists. Women in their 40s are the best customers
for regular mammograms. As many as 40% of them have
an annual mammogram at a cost of $50-100 each. Now
another study in Sweden supports the Canadian findings.
Dr. Lazlo Tabar followed 35,000 women aged 40-49 for
11 years. He found no evidence that regular mammographic
screening of these women had any benefits. [9]
A large study of the benefits of mammography screening
for breast cancer was carried out in 2001 by the prestigious
Cochrane Institute. The study questioned the benefits of
screening and pointed out that screening could be harmful
in that it frequently leads to over-diagnosis and over-treatment.
The Cochrane Institute has now released the results
of a new study aimed at determining how fairly the benefits
and dangers of mammography are presented on web sites.
They evaluated 13 sites maintained by advocacy groups,
11 maintained by governmental institutions, and 3 maintained
by consumer organizations. They found that all the
advocacy group sites accepted sponsorship from industry
without restriction. The close relationship can perhaps best
be summed up in this quote from the Canadian Cancer
Society, "Partnership with the Canadian Cancer Society can
assist your company in reaching your commercial objectives."
The researchers found that all the governmental agencies
and advocacy groups heavily favoured screening and significantly
downplayed the drawbacks; the consumer health
organizations took a much more balanced view. [10]
Recent advances in technology have brought thermography
to the point where it is now used as one of the
diagnostic tools in two cancer research centers in North
America. Today, there are very strict protocols both for
testing and interpreting. Perhaps due to these guidelines,
thermography (unlike digital mammography) has
exploded in its technique and capabilities.
The consensus among experts is that early detection of
breast cancer holds the key to survival. If mammography's
look at structure can detect a cancerous mass, and thermography's
look at systems can detect early suspicions of cancer
formation, then it stands to reason thermography can act as
an early warning system, giving women the fighting chance
they need to win this battle.
Thermography is ideal for women who
- have had cosmetic or reconstructive surgery
(implants)
- want to avoid radiation
- have dense breasts
- are pregnant or nursing
Screening – whether by thermogram, mammogram
or any other means – is not diagnosis. Both thermography
and mammography demonstrate abnormalities
indicating the possibility of the presence of cancer, as
well as a host of other breast conditions. These clinical
findings require differential diagnosis. Only confirmation
of abnormal cell morphology under the microscope
can make the definitive diagnosis of cancer.
Neither thermography nor mammography has 100%
accuracy. For that matter, physical diagnosis (palpation
of the breast) is not 100% accurate either. These tests
are the best we have. Any effective tool which does not
traumatize the breast or deliver ionizing (mutating)
radiation is far preferable as a screening tool to one
which causes damage while it is screening.
Thermography is useful for evaluating other parts of
the body as well. Thermography is an excellent tool in
sports medicine and pain management because it can
map inflammation from neurologic or musculoskeletal
dysfunction. It can also be of assistance in the evaluation
of deep vein thrombosis, insufficiency of the blood
supply, and more. We can even see changes in the area
of the abdomen which could indicate inflammatory
bowel disease like colitis, ileitis or Crohn's disease.
A brief word about cancer:
Cancer is brought on by inflammation, which may be
triggered by trauma. That trauma can take different forms
- Emotional - such as feelings of unworthiness
relating to one's femininity
- Mental - such as our mindset about shame that create
ongoing brain patterns that manifest physically
- Physical - such as a car accident, or other direct
trauma to the breast
A thermogram which has only "inflammatory" change
should prompt further testing in the form of a mammogram.
No matter what the mammogram shows, negative or positive,
holistic preventive care is appropriate. The patient is encouraged
to visit a practitioner of holistic medicine who can help
reduce the inflammation and possibly head the problem off
at the pass. Inflammatory change will never be seen with
mammography, because it only sees anatomy, not function.
A negative mammogram in the face of a positive thermogram
suggests only that cancer has not developed yet, there is still
time for preventive care.
Most cancers are in the body for up to 20 years before they
become large enough to see with our crude methods of testing.
Let us not waste those 20 years by hiding our heads in the
sand. Let us spend them actively seeking healthful practices,
excellent nutrition, and adequate exercise. Let us encourage
the removal of all toxins from the body – cigarettes, alcohol,
drugs, pharmaceuticals, worry, anxiety, resentment and fear.
And, above all, let us practice gratitude, that our lives may be
abundantly full and joyful. Then inflammation will decrease
on all levels, and health will be restored.
"But breast cancer runs in my family, so I will get it too."
Not necessarily. If trauma, stress, and lack of good nutrition
culminate in disease, then where is the weak spot? Where is
the body most likely to break down? If breast cancer runs in
the family, then indeed, a person may develop breast cancer.
If arthritis, another inflammatory immune system disorder,
runs in the family, another person may develop joint problems
instead. If a person takes better than average care of herself,
mentally and physically, she may not fall prey to breast cancer
even though it runs in the family. There may be an inherited
a pre-disposition, but that does not necessarily mean that it
will develop.
The Susan G. Komen Foundation funded a study released
in May, 2007, that essentially found that our increasingly
polluted and toxic environment is much to blame for the rise
in cancer. As reported in the press: [11]
More than 200 chemicals – many found in urban air
and everyday consumer products – cause breast cancer
in animal tests, according to a compilation of scientific
reports published today.
Writing in a publication of the American Cancer
Society, researchers concluded that reducing exposure
to the compounds could prevent many women from
developing the disease.
The research team from five institutions analyzed a growing
body of evidence linking environmental contaminants
to breast cancer, the leading killer of U.S. women in their
late 30s to early 50s.
Experts say that family history and genes are responsible
for a small percentage of breast cancer cases but that
environmental or lifestyle factors such as diet are probably
involved in the vast majority.
In other words, environmental toxins continually pollute
the body. Our natural detoxification systems work less efficiently
over time. More free radicals are formed, damaging
our DNA. The stage is set for disease.
Thermography is a screening tool which can help raise
suspicions of breast cancer at an early stage, when there is
still chance of complete cure. We feel strongly enough about
the value of thermography that we are adding this equipment
to our diagnostic tools. Our thermography testing will be
available as of October, 2007.
Established patients can simply call to make an appointment
for a thermogram. New patients who wish to have
thermography are evaluated medically first, before having the
test. Other patients may be referred just for a thermogram by
their regular physician, to whom we will send a report.
Q & A
Q - How can thermography detect potential cancers so many years earlier than mammography?
A - When a tumor is forming, it develops its own blood supply to feed its accelerated growth, a process known as malignant angiogenesis. Pre-cancerous tissues can start this process well in advance of the cells becoming malignant.
Q - You recommend that if the thermogram suggests cancerous tissue may be present, that one follow up with a mammogram. Why?
A - Because thermography is a functional test, mammography is an anatomic test. If the functional test is suspicious, then you want to look at the anatomy. Often times, thermography catches breast cancer sooner than it can be felt by palpation. Mammography can look for a mass that is still too small to be felt. Even mammography considers a "small" tumor to be 2 cm in diameter (1 inch = 2.5 cm), which is a large mass of cells. So if we see something suspicious on a thermogram, the risk of x-rays and compression is a risk worth taking , because we may be able to see a much smaller tumor. Using mammography in this way means exposing yourself to x-rays and compression only when absolutely necessary, rather than routinely year after year.
Q – What happens during the test?
A – For instructions on how to prepare for a thermography exam, click here.

|
|
 |