q's about thermography

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I saw a news special on KTVU news about a new technology called thermography, and I
wanted to find out what other people think or know about this method. The newscaster said that
this method could be used to screen for cancer 8 years earlier then mammography , ultrasound, ect.
Is this true?

Maybe one day. Despite considerable technological improvements, thermography has not thus far proved
able to pick up the tiny breast cancers that mammography can, and unless it can do so regularly it
is not going to be a cost-effective stand-alone screening tool. Its place may be in helping the
assessment of breast lesions in younger women, and as an adjunct to other methods in screening
clinics, and perhaps as a better-than-nothing resort in high risk women.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

What are the real pros and cons of this method? (I don't like to believe everything the news says).
If any of you have had experience with this tech. I'd like to know what you think having used it or
been around it.

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I saw a news special on KTVU news about a new technology called thermography, and I
wanted to find out what other people think or know about this method. The newscaster said that
this method could be used to screen for cancer 8 years earlier then mammography , ultrasound,
ect. Is this true?

Maybe one day. Despite considerable technological improvements, thermography has not thus far
proved able to pick up the tiny breast

cancers

Quoted message said:

that mammography can, and unless it can do so regularly it is not going to be a cost-effective stand-
alone screening tool. Its place may be in helping the assessment of breast lesions in younger
women, and as an

adjunct

Quoted message said:

to other methods in screening clinics, and perhaps as a

better-than-nothing

Quoted message said:

resort in high risk women.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

What are the real pros and cons of this method? (I don't like to believe everything the news
says). If any of you have had experience with this tech. I'd like to know what you think having
used it or been around it.

Funnily enough, I just reviewed a research proposal this afternoon for thermographic multi-spectral
tomography in breast cancer. Very interesting basic science, but years away from any use clinically.

"Steph" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<KCy_b.605385$X%5.584146@pd7tw2no>...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:403a6d30$0$32767$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Quoted message said:

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I saw a news special on KTVU news about a new technology called thermography, and I
wanted to find out what other people think or know about this method. The newscaster said that
this method could be used to screen for cancer 8 years earlier then mammography , ultrasound,
ect. Is this true?

Maybe one day. Despite considerable technological improvements, thermography has not thus far
proved able to pick up the tiny breast

cancers

Quoted message said:

that mammography can, and unless it can do so regularly it is not going to be a cost-effective
stand-alone screening tool. Its place may be in helping the assessment of breast lesions in
younger women, and as an

adjunct

Quoted message said:

to other methods in screening clinics, and perhaps as a

better-than-nothing

Quoted message said:

resort in high risk women.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

What are the real pros and cons of this method? (I don't like to believe everything the news
says). If any of you have had experience with this tech. I'd like to know what you think having
used it or been around it.

Funnily enough, I just reviewed a research proposal this afternoon for thermographic multi-
spectral tomography in breast cancer. Very interesting basic science, but years away from any use
clinically.

I did a little research, and it does seem to work on some very basic ideas. Peter I don't know
what your talking about with coast effective and tiny breast cancer that mamography can pick up. I
thought that mamography could only pick up breast cancer once it had calcified, after it had been
through 20-30 multiplications. And coast effective, the price I found had the average thermoscan
at $200 and the Avg mamogram at $500. Also, don't mamograms have trouble with different tissue
densities? Now as far as being stand alone, your right, I don't think it will be able to for some
time. I also have seen mulktiple studies sighted for the accuracy, but I haven't looked through
those to see if they are good valid studies. I saw from the sitations that about half of those
studies seemed to be in off-beat journals. More Q's: Do cancer cells really emit a chemical to
draw a fresh blood supply? I also like the idea of someone finding a noninvasive way to conduct
cancer risk assesments. At what age can women get a mamography? I apperciate the responses. thanks
Peter nd Steph.

"Steph" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<KCy_b.605385$X%5.584146@pd7tw2no>...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:403a6d30$0$32767$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-
01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

Quoted message said:

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Recently I saw a news special on KTVU news about a new technology called thermography, and I
wanted to find out what other people think or know about this method. The newscaster said that
this method could be used to screen for cancer 8 years earlier then mammography , ultrasound,
ect. Is this true?

Maybe one day. Despite considerable technological improvements, thermography has not thus far
proved able to pick up the tiny breast

cancers

Quoted message said:

that mammography can, and unless it can do so regularly it is not going to be a cost-effective
stand-alone screening tool. Its place may be in helping the assessment of breast lesions in
younger women, and as an

adjunct

Quoted message said:

to other methods in screening clinics, and perhaps as a

better-than-nothing

Quoted message said:

resort in high risk women.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

What are the real pros and cons of this method? (I don't like to believe everything the news
says). If any of you have had experience with this tech. I'd like to know what you think having
used it or been around it.

Funnily enough, I just reviewed a research proposal this afternoon for thermographic multi-
spectral tomography in breast cancer. Very interesting basic science, but years away from any use
clinically.

What kind of research Steph?

"Laura" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steph" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<KCy_b.605385$X%5.584146@pd7tw2no>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Recently I saw a news special on KTVU news about a new technology called thermography, and I
> wanted to find out what other people

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> or know about this method. The newscaster said that this method

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> be used to screen for cancer 8 years earlier then mammography , ultrasound, ect. Is this
> true?

Maybe one day. Despite considerable technological improvements, thermography has not thus far
proved able to pick up the tiny breast

cancers

Quoted message said:

that mammography can, and unless it can do so regularly it is not

going to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be a cost-effective stand-alone screening tool. Its place may be in helping the assessment of
breast lesions in younger women, and as an

adjunct

Quoted message said:

to other methods in screening clinics, and perhaps as a

better-than-nothing

Quoted message said:

resort in high risk women.

Peter Moran

>What are the real pros and cons of this method? (I don't like to believe everything the news
>says). If any

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> you have had experience with this tech. I'd like to know what you think having used it or
> been around it.

Funnily enough, I just reviewed a research proposal this afternoon for thermographic multi-
spectral tomography in breast cancer. Very interesting basic science, but years away from any
use clinically.

What kind of research Steph?

It's a proposal submitted to a US granting board that I sit on.

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steph" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<KCy_b.605385$X%5.584146@pd7tw2no>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Recently I saw a news special on KTVU news about a new technology called thermography, and I
> wanted to find out what other people

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> or know about this method. The newscaster said that this method

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> be used to screen for cancer 8 years earlier then mammography , ultrasound, ect. Is this
> true?

Maybe one day. Despite considerable technological improvements, thermography has not thus far
proved able to pick up the tiny breast

cancers

Quoted message said:

that mammography can, and unless it can do so regularly it is not

going to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

be a cost-effective stand-alone screening tool. Its place may be in helping the assessment of
breast lesions in younger women, and as an

adjunct

Quoted message said:

to other methods in screening clinics, and perhaps as a

better-than-nothing

Quoted message said:

resort in high risk women.

Peter Moran

>What are the real pros and cons of this method? (I don't like to believe everything the news
>says). If any

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> you have had experience with this tech. I'd like to know what you think having used it or
> been around it.

Funnily enough, I just reviewed a research proposal this afternoon for thermographic multi-
spectral tomography in breast cancer. Very interesting basic science, but years away from any
use clinically.

I did a little research, and it does seem to work on some very basic ideas. Peter I don't know
what your talking about with coast effective and tiny breast cancer that mamography can pick up. I
thought that mamography could only pick up breast cancer once it had calcified, after it had been
through 20-30 multiplications.

Mammography can pick up cancers that are only a few millimimetres across, either as
microcalcifications or as small mass lesions in suitable breasts, especially in the radioucent
breasts of older women. Picking up a local temperature change from such lesions, especially if deep
within the breast is a major technicial challenge for thermography.

Quoted message said:

And coast effective, the price I found had the average thermoscan at $200 and the Avg
mamogram at $500.

I have worked mainly in countries where screening is a public expense. Politicians like to know how
much each life saved is going to cost them before funding screening programs. I am not sure what the
present value of a life is in political terms but it used to be about thirty or forty thousand
dollars. Screening is much more costly when not done in specialised clinics with clear policies, so
that public funding is probably the best option..

Quoted message said:

Also, don't mamograms have trouble with different tissue densities?

Yes. I am not sure that thermography will find dense (and therefore also vascular) breasts
much easier.

Quoted message said:

Now as far as being stand alone, your right, I don't think it will be able to for some time. I
also have seen mulktiple studies sighted for the accuracy, but I haven't looked through those to
see if they are good valid studies. I saw from the sitations that about half of those studies
seemed to be in off-beat journals. More Q's: Do cancer cells really emit a chemical to draw a
fresh blood supply? I also like the idea of someone finding a noninvasive way to conduct cancer
risk assesments. At what age can women get a mamography?

In the absence of any major risk factors screening is recommended from about fory or forty
five. There is some evidence that lives can be saved by mammography at younger ages but the
cost-effectiveness of screening will be much less, and perhaps any risks will be higher, the
younger you go.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

I apperciate the responses. thanks Peter nd Steph.

The more I read about Thermography, the more I believe that this is going to be an adjunctive tool.
It seems like the repetitive claim to fame is that it's cheap and can be used much earlier than
traditional methods.

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what the present value of a life is in political terms but it used to be about thirty
or forty thousand dollars. (peter)

As far as this goes I didn't mean to sound so pompous. I live in CA where the health care system
isn't so hot, therefore cheaper alternatives, so long as quality isn't effected, really do mean a
lot. So as far as the value of a life in my political terms, life is priceless. In CA terms ask
an HMO rep.

Quoted message said:

Mammography can pick up cancers that are only a few millimimetres across, either as
microcalcifications or as small mass lesions in suitable breasts, especially in the radioucent
breasts of older women. (peter)

But if cancer starts as a single cell, isn't a few millimeters a lot?

Quoted message said:

Picking up a local temperature change from such lesions, especially if deep within the breast is a
major technicial challenge for thermography.(peter)

Agreed. Having said that isn't it difficult for mammography to even yield a clear image? The false
positive, and false negative, rates are disgusting.

I know that it sounds like I'm Anti-Mammography, but I'm only playing the devils advocate to get the
highest quality debate. Mammography has saved countless lives and will continue to for a long time,
but I want to save more lives. If thermography saves 1 more life isn't that enough, what about 10?

"Jud" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The more I read about Thermography, the more I believe that this is going to be an adjunctive
tool. It seems like the repetitive claim to fame is that it's cheap and can be used much earlier
than traditional methods.

Quoted message said:

I am not sure what the present value of a life is in political terms but it used to be about
thirty or forty thousand dollars. (peter)

As far as this goes I didn't mean to sound so pompous. I live in CA where the health care system
isn't so hot, therefore cheaper alternatives, so long as quality isn't effected, really do mean a
lot. So as far as the value of a life in my political terms, life is priceless. In CA terms ask
an HMO rep.

Quoted message said:

Mammography can pick up cancers that are only a few millimimetres across, either as
microcalcifications or as small mass lesions in suitable

breasts,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

especially in the radioucent breasts of older women. (peter)

But if cancer starts as a single cell, isn't a few millimeters a lot?

Quoted message said:

Picking up a local temperature change from such lesions, especially if deep within the breast is
a major technicial challenge for thermography.(peter)

Agreed. Having said that isn't it difficult for mammography to even yield a clear image? The false
positive, and false negative, rates are disgusting.

I know that it sounds like I'm Anti-Mammography, but I'm only playing the devils advocate to get
the highest quality debate. Mammography has saved countless lives and will continue to for a long
time, but I want to save more lives. If thermography saves 1 more life isn't that enough, what
about 10?

The physical basis of thermography makes it unlikely it will detect cancers any smaller than
mammography, or have better sensitivity or specificity.

In addition, the prognosis for women with the kind of small cancer found by mammography is
very good.....