Thermogram. Circles show inflammation in the skin of the woman's left breast (right side of image).
Thermograms detect infrared rays to show patterns of body temperature.
What most people I know who have gotten a thermogram don’t seem to have been told is that thermograms only detect surface bloodflow, so any cancer growth deeper than a few millimeters may not be detected unless it also happens to be large enough to disturb the surface blood flow patterns.
Mammograms use radiation to find calcifications hiding anywhere in the breast tissue, even deep ones.
What most people who’ve gotten mammograms don’t often hear is that mammograms are really difficult to interpret.
The true power of any diagnostic image lies not in the technology but in the human brains behind the technology. Over decades, mammographers have been getting smarter and smarter, learning from mistakes and successes.
Mammogram. Arrows show abnormal calcifications in the breast tissue.
Radiologists have learned to detect cancers earlier and earlier because there’s been a group who have systematically studied cancer cases, going back to look at earlier mammograms to see if there were any abnormalities in the area of the tumor that, in retrospect, have become obvious.
This information is dissemenated at medical meetings and in journals, textbooks and so on. So now, after four decades of experience using the technology, mammograms can detect very tiny (1 mm), early cancers. (Unfortunately, they cannot determine whether the cancer has already metastasized, see post to find out why this makes screening mammography potentially risky.) Compared to this massive collective intelligence improving the interpretation of mammograms, thermography is in its infancy.
Thermography professionals have small and scattered associations. Mammography professionals have huge and highly organized associations and frequent meetings. The network of intellect behind mammography is huge. Thermography, not so. Not yet.
Diagram showing glands tracking deep into the breast tissue down the the muscle. Thermograms don't penetrate this deep.
Bottom line: If you want to find a cancer, you want to get a mammogram. Thermographic results are interesting when used in combination with standard mammography, but right now their diagnostic and prognostic value are too limited and I would recommend that women who want to use thermograms as a replacement for mammograms reconsider their position.
Now the real question is, if you find breast cancer early, does it prolong your life? You might be surprised by the answer. (See my post, Breast Cancer: Is Early Detection a Good Thing)
>Related Posts:
As an thermographer I believe that theromgraphy is a great way for early detection, but I also believe that mammograms should also be used. I believe that early detection on the surface with a thermogram can be detected but looking for deep cancer cells should be done with mammograms. It is a technology that can help but not used by itself.
Brent,
This is helpful information. If I read right, you are saying thermography is unable to detect lesions that don’t disrupt surface blood flow so you would do them in conjunction with mammograms. A very good point, and thank you.
I like the gentle way you divert attention back to mammograms.
The problem with thermograms is just that, they are FDA approved ONLY as a supplement to a mmmg, but folks rely on them for primary screening.
My main gripe is that when people bad mouth mammograms and say that they expose us to too much ionizing radiation…they forget that it is the same amount we receive in a cross country jet flight, or a year of living in Colorado, due to altitude and mountains….
I came looking for more info on your books which I will buy!!
Thanks for all you do to keep us healthy! Congratulations on another fine book. VB
Thanks for all your efforts on promoting a healthful lifestyle.
According to an increasing number of experts, mammograms are the leading cause of breast cancer…within a few years from now there will be a proliferation of law suits regarding this matter.
There is a growing concern that a given radiation dosage to a young woman’s breast is more mutagenic than to a post-menopausal breast, and a recent article has proposed that our practice of irradiating young women with family histories of breast cancer might actually have caused cancer in some cases. I’m not sure we can say that mammograms are the leading cause of breast cancer, however, when there are unfortunately so many other toxic exposures all around us.