DITI or Thermography

calfmuscle

Hi there,

Would love to hear if opinions on thermography in the detection of breast cancer?

Xeyn

Not a scientifically backed proven method of detection. If it was it would be more widely used.

calfmuscle

That's what I thought, I have a client who is having this done because she was told its better for her. I said to have a chat to the gp about getting a mamogram. But am worried about others being misled!

Xeyn

calfmuscle wrote: »

That's what I thought, I have a client who is having this done because she was told its better for her. I said to have a chat to the gp about getting a mamogram. But am worried about others being misled!

There have been court cases against homeopathic practitioners who claim that it is an effective screening tool an they've always lost because they fail to show any good scientific proof for its use.
It's not about the test itself which is fairly harmless but about what a false negative report might lead to. People may be falsely reassured that they have been effectively screened and given the all clear whilst tried and tested methods like mammography, ultrasound and MRI may have identified an early lesion.
The technology itself is ideal as it avoids radiation (which mammograms do not) which is why it appeals to people. It may have a role as an adjunct but as an effective screening tool it has no place unless new data surfaces to the contrary.

Just a note that I have worked as a doctor in the breast cancer services in one of the major centres in Dublin and if this was an effective tool it would be used. We don't like irradiating patients unless they need it and research shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.

calfmuscle

Xeyn wrote: »

There have been court cases against homeopathic practitioners who claim that it is an effective screening tool an they've always lost because they fail to show any good scientific proof for its use.
It's not about the test itself which is fairly harmless but about what a false negative report might lead to. People may be falsely reassured that they have been effectively screened and given the all clear whilst tried and tested methods like mammography, ultrasound and MRI may have identified an early lesion.
The technology itself is ideal as it avoids radiation (which mammograms do not) which is why it appeals to people. It may have a role as an adjunct but as an effective screening tool it has no place unless new data surfaces to the contrary.

Just a note that I have worked as a doctor in the breast cancer services in one of the major centres in Dublin and if this was an effective tool it would be used. We don't like irradiating patients unless they need it and research shows that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Thanks for that I appreciate it. This person has been having this test done by her chiropractor. Ill reiterate the importance of chatting to her gp about her concerns when I see her again.
Disgraceful behaviour by her chiro!