Wednesday, October 20, 2010

The contoversy over thermography

October has become "all things about breast cancer, all the time" and while a lot of the information that makes headlines in October are helpful, informative, and potentially lifesaving, some of the information out there is decidedly "none of the above."  In our last post we talked about the variety of breast cancer screening options available today, many of which are still experimental.  With this post we focus on one technique in particular that we find problematic because it is highly touted on the internet without scientific data to support its use as an effective screening technique.  This technique is called thermography, although it does go by other names, including infrared mammography and computerized thermal imaging.

We focus on thermography here because of a recent article in the Huffington Post touting its benefits.  Dr. Christiane Northrup's article is well written and persuasive and judging by the comments legions of women are currently following her advice to give up their yearly mammograms in favor of thermography.  But we sincerely hope than none of the fans of Positive Results: Making the Best Decisions When You're at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer are among those making what we consider a dangerous step away from mammography and breast MRI.   

Why?  Because thermography, although studied seriously since the 1970s, has not been proven sufficiently effective at finding cancer to replace either mammography or MRI.  Dr. Northrup's article is not science, it is fluff and advertising for a technique that may actually cause harm.  Fortunately, we were not the only ones who noticed Dr. Northrup's slick sounding article.  A breast cancer surgeon and science blogger has blogged in detail about the falsity of virtually every assertion in Dr. Northrup's article in his blog The Huffington Post promotes breast cancer quackery again, which we urge you to read, both because it is entertaining and because it methodically reviews the hype and the science of thermography.

4 comments:

  1. I'm so glad to see this post. As a clinician and scientifically trained person myself, as well as a breast cancer survivor, many of Dr. Northrup's assertions distress me greatly, because she's not applying her training, and as a result, is doing a disservice to her followers.

    Thermography can have a place in the overall scheme of things, and we all certainly would like to see more accurate, less uncomfortable ways of screening for breast cancer. But mostly, like yourselves, I want to see cancer patients getting accurate, honest, thorough information, to enable us all to fulfill the true meaning of informed consent when making medical decisions or helping others make them.

    Kathi

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, and by the way, I love the Respectful Insolence Blog.

    Kathi

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thermography is not meant to replace mammography and vice- versa. Have you had thermography?
    There are over 800 clinical papers written on thermography. Why rule out ANYTHING if it can help save lives. It was the Gold Standard for early detection until 1984 AND paid for by Medicaid. Then the push for mammograms...follow the money and in-case you have not heard radiation IS cumulative....but everyone should have a choice and what about younger breasts when mammograms are NOT recommended?

    ReplyDelete