Thanks to Aliss T. Phil Hoekstra PhD Medical scientist and director of Therma-Scan, a clinical diagnostic lab in Huntington Woods, MI (near Detroit). He is a second-generation IR (Infra Red) researcher. 248.544.7500 This seminar was the most fascinating and relevant to me personally. He provided a brief history of mammography. Early mammograms from the 40's onward gave a high dose of radiation, but the films were sharp and detailed and had a high rate of true positives, allowing for early detection and treatment. Problem: it was alarmingly obvious that they CAUSED breast cancer. In the 70's, mammogram radiation exposure was reduced by 90% after the BEIR report (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation) but the low-dose films are muddy, indistinct, and very hard to read. Optimum accuracy of about 70% is with women over 55 not on hormones, medium size breasts with no previous surgery or fibrocystic disease. Small or large breasts with fibrocystic disease, scars, premenopausal high density or on hormone replacement therapy make the accuracy drop to as low as 20%. Does not find chest wall tumors. And for women who have the BRCA-1 or -2 gene, mammograms are deadly, as this mutation or oncogene is the very one that is activated by ionizing radiation damage. Digital mammography does not reduce radiation. The digital aspect is in the fact that it goes to computer disk instead of film. Research has not yet demonstrated an advantage in accuracy for digital mammos, but the hope is that it will reduce false readings both positive and negative. Even with widespread screening, true early detection has not become a reality, hence the lack of progress in reducing b.c. mortality in 50 years. Most cancers found "early" by mammo are already late Stage I or II. Older mammograms at 20 pounds pressure were shown to rupture encapsulated tumor edges, leading to spread of the disease. Newer mammograms use 42 pounds of pressure. Cancer industry ignores the research by Goffman showing that 75% of all b.c. is diagnostic radiation-induced. A 1999 review of his research brought it up to 83%. Thermology was initially embraced enthusiastically in the 70's as a replacement for mammograms, but the radiation industry responded by reducing the amount of radiation per mammogram, developing new machinery, funding large multi-centre trials, extensive recruitment and training of radiologists in mammography, and comparing large numbers of mammo screenings by highly trained techs using standardized equipment and interpretation protocol unfavorably with small, poorly designed diverse trials using different types of IR screening and a mixed bag of interpretation protocol. Nevertheless, if you look at those old studies, thermology looks slightly better than mammo for accurately detecting early cancer in combination with clinical and self exam and site-specific u/s as followup. Thermo spares many women the radiation exposure of mammogram when used as a first line of screening with clinical exam, i.e. only those with abnormal findings will be sent for further evaluation by mammo. It is the first line of screening in many European countries and Japan. (Note that Japan has one of the lowest b.c. rates in the world.) Thermology has advanced to the stage where it can detect a 1/10,000 degree Celsius difference. Suspicious breast tissue findings typically have 1/10 or more degree rise. The "autonomic challenge test" of having the hands in cold water after the initial scan and then repeating the scan makes all normal capillaries and vessels contract, lowering the temperature reading. Abnormal vessels due to carcinogenesis, even before an active tumor is formed, can be seen as hotter spots due to the fact that most (but not all) angiogenetic vessels do not have receptors for smooth muscle and nerves, and do not respond to the autonomic challenge test. So the accuracy for thermology in detecting early abnormal cell growth (pre-DCIS in many cases) is better than mammograms, which often do not find these spots at all. The false negative rate for thermology is slightly better than mammo, and the false positive rate is two to three times lower than mammo, depending on which independent study you read. This is likely because mammos report minute calcifications as suspicious or pathological when they are frequently benign. And vice versa. Hoekstra's clinic claims to have the highest accuracy rate based on their experience, approaching 100%. Thermology plus mammo plus focused ultrasound (when suspicious findings arise in either mammo or thermo) with clinical exam can all but eliminate false positives and reduce unnecessary biopsies and node dissection. Hoekstra's bias is he believes that thermo can replace mammo for screening, especially in younger women and high-risk BRC-identified groups, but of course he can't say that, so the official line is that it is a vital adjunct to mammos, ultrasound and clinical exam. He said thermo can find cancer the size of a grain of rice. But its real value is in its ability to find "dystrophic regional changes" that are the precursors to cancer several years before tumorigenesis, which can then be treated holistically and possibly reversed before invasive cancer develops. Also, sparing many women unnecessary node dissection (can see nodal involvement), and finding chest wall recurrences and scar recurrences that mammos can't. Thermology also has other significant medical screening and diagnostic applications. There is a local Ontario firm providing breast scans which are transmitted to Hoekstra's clinic and interpreted by him. Medical Thermography International Inc.is at http://www.medthermonline.com/ and will set up travelling thermogram clinic onsite at practitioner's request. For those of you who can't find a local thermo clinic, this may be an option. Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.