Use of steady-state thermography and dynamic thermography in breast cancer diagnosis
Date Issued
2011
Date
2011
Author(s)
Wang, Jane
Abstract
Background and Objective:
Breast thermography is an examination which delineates physiological response of the tumor. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the two types of breast thermography- steady-state and dynamic thermography, and investigate the association of thermographic signs with breast cancer prognostic indicators, including ER (estrogen receptor), PR (progesterone receptor), HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) statuses, clinical staging, and histologic grade.
Methods:
We conducted a cross-sectional study, and enrolled women who had suspicious findings on mammography or breast ultrasound. We interpreted steady-state thermography using five thermographic signs and evaluated the diagnostic performance by ROC analysis (Receiver operating characteristics) from age-adjusted multiple logistic regression model
For the subpopulation of women receiving both steady-state and dynamic thermography, the interpretation was determined by the two steady-state signs and two dynamic signs. The age-adjusted logistic regression models with only steady-state signs (model A) and with both steady-state and dynamic signs (model B), and the resulting AUC (Area under the ROC curve) can be derived.
The association of thermographic signs and the prognostic indicators of the cancerous lesions were estimated for steady-state thermography and dynamic thermography.
Results:
A total of 298 breast lesions were included for steady-state thermographic study. The AUC was 0.781 for the fitted model (95% CI: 0.683-0.855). The specificity was 30.4% when the sensitivity was 94.3%. Of the 171 cancerous lesions, two thermographic signs were inversely associated with ER (P=0.010 and 0.037), and three signs were inversely associated with PR (P=0.039, 0.020, and 0.022). Triple-negative (ER, PR, and HER2 negative) cancers tended to show higher thermographic scores than other types of cancers (P =0.029). One thermographic sign was positively associated with clinical staging (P=0.008). One thermographic sign was positively associated with histologic grade of invasive ductal carcinoma (n=128; P=0.037).
There were 56 lesions with both steady-state and dynamic images available. The AUC was both 0.744 for the models A and B (95% CI: model A, 0.512-0.978; B, 0.514-0.975), and the specificity was 33.3% when the sensitivity was 100% for both models. Of the 26 malignant lesions, one of the dynamic signs was inversely associated with ER (P=0.021). The two dynamic signs were positively associated with HER2 status (P=0.015 and 0.033). One steady-state sign was positively related with the histologic grade of invasive ductal carcinoma (P=0.006; n=22).
Conclusion:
The specificity of breast thermography was low when the sensitivity >90%. Dynamic thermography did not show additional diagnostic yield than steady-state thermography. The thermographic signs may be predictive of breast cancer prognosis.
Subjects
Breast thermography
diagnostic performance
breast neoplasms.
SDGs
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-100-D95846001-1.pdf
Size
23.32 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):71565a1c4b2bd24af7825bc9795fa568