Cancer Battle Hots Up
Thermal imaging is being touted as a new way to identify cancer. But not everyone agrees
In 1971, former US president Richard Nixon launched a much-hyped ‘war on cancer’, confidently proclaiming that a cure for the disease would be discovered within five years. Thirty years on, we are still suffering from the scourge.
Cancer has become one of the most lethal diseases known to mankind, with one in four people expected to die from it.
But with more emphasis being placed on the early detection of cancer, there is now renewed interest in infra-red technology. Is it the hot new way to identify cancer, or just more quackology?
Digital thermal imaging – or thermography – was originally developed by the US military for night-vision systems. An ultra-sensitive heat camera identifies areas of the body that are very slightly hotter than the surrounding skin, which is said to be a sign of abnormal tissue growth.
In 1982, the US Food and Drug Administration approved breast thermography as an “adjunctive” diagnostic breast cancer screening procedure, to be used alongside other forms of diagnosis.
Thermal imaging is one of a number of procedures on offer at the Irish Centre of Integrated Medicine, under the stewardship of biologist Felipe Reitz.
Based in Naas, Co. Kildare, Reitz and his colleagues focus on natural and complementary medicine and treatments, including acupuncture, homoeopathy and bone sonometry screening. They aim to work in tandem with mainstream medical practitioners.
Reitz says thermal imaging has been evolving for 25 years and has now come of age as a scanning technique, with levels of definition and accuracy previously unimaginable.
“It can show subtle temperature changes in tissue before a tumour has formed – before it can be detected by a mammogram and before a lump can be felt.
“A mammogram will not detect anything until it is the size of an olive and involves a dose of radiation,” Reitz says.
So what’s it like? I stood behind a screen, undressed and turned as directed, while shots were taken of my body from various angles. The procedure is non-invasive, painless, radiation-free and takes just ten minutes. Soon afterwards, I am seated in front of a computer watching my images flash up on screen, while Reitz takes me through the scans. Colourful graphics show the relative areas of heat. Any red hot areas within the tissue can indicate trouble.
Although primarily used to detect cancer cells, Reitz says thermal imaging can also be a useful diagnostic tool for other illnesses.
Patients normally fill in an extensive questionnaire beforehand, but I did not do so, so Reitz knew nothing about my medical history.
He picked up on four minor complaints I have had over the past few years, including a kidney infection and a problem with my left knee.
“Your pictures are good,” he tells me. There is no mention of the dreaded Big C.
Reitz is not a medical doctor and doesn’t pretend to be, but I am amazed at his accuracy. He did not list off a spiel of common ailments in the hope that he would strike gold with one or two.
So why aren’t more mainstream doctors embracing this screening technique? One consultant oncologist dismisses it immediately: “If it’s as good as he says it is, we’d all be using it.”
The Irish Cancer Society was also far from enthusiastic. A spokeswoman said: “NO study has ever shown that medical thermography is an effective screening tool for early detection of breast cancer, and it should never be used as a replacement for mammograms.”
Since the 1970s, almost 1,000 clinical studies have been published on thermography. According to Reitz and the International Academy of Clinical Thermography, much of this research has proved positive though a substantial number of studies do not support its use or the claims of its proponents.
Reitz believes the medical establishment is simply show to embrace change. “I think a lot of GPs don’t know about it.” He says. “They have not updated themselves to know what is available. In the US, more and more doctors believe it will be leading breast screening device within a few years.”
One Dublin-based GP agrees wholeheartedly with Reitz. “It is absolutely excellent. I have had very positive results. In time, its use will become more widespread,” says Dr Eric Fakih, of the Crestfield medical practice in Whitehall.
Internationally, a growing number of doctors also believe thermal imaging is a valuable screening device in the fight against cancer, but the medical establishment is mainly sceptical.
A major study published in 1982 concluded that “infrared imaging does not appear to be suitable as a substitute for mammography.”
However, there is disagreement about the validity of the trial. Critics point out that the technical specification of the cameras was limited, that staff lacked technical expertise and that the procedures weren’t standardised. They also maintain that the technology has improved dramatically over the past quarter of a century.
According to Reitz, more than 1,200 people visited the centre last for breast checks costing €165, rather than a full body scan, which costs €380.
Such is the level of demand that Reitz plans to open a clinic in Donegal and is considering setting up a mobile unit to operate nationwide.
Thermography is not a fail-safe method. It will not catch everything – neither do mammograms – but it can show that there is a problem that requires further tests for confirmation.
Medical experts who use thermography stress that the technology should not be used alone to detect cancer. In the case of breast cancer, for example, they say the best approach is combination of regular self-check, examinations by a health professional and the use of mammograms when appropriate.
Tags: Breast Check, Thermography