Thermography significance of detecting breast cancer

Aim of the study: To evaluate the ability of thermography to detect cancerous changes in breast tissue Objectives: 1. To evaluate the accuracy, specificity and sensitivity of a thermography; 2. Determine the difference in breast temperature in healthy and by cancer affected breast; 3. To establish the relationship between the results of the thermographic examination and the clinicopathological factors; 4. Compare breast tumors localizations in mamography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imagining and thermography imagining. Methods: In this study were involved 160 women, investigated in clinic of radiology and performed surgical treatment in breast surgery department of LUHS clinical hospital in period of 2015 – 2017. Data was collected according to the rejection criterion. Thermographical examination was performed one day before surgery using thermal camera “ThermaCAM P640” (FLIR Systems, USA). Starch data analysis was performed by next: nonparametric Kruskal – Wallis criterion in few independent groups and the non-parametric Mann Whitney U criterion in two independent groups. The homogeneity of the comparative value of the qualitative character of distribution groups to ensure the application of the X 2 show signs of independence. Differences were statistically significant, when the estimated significance level (p-value) was less than the chosen significance level (a = 0.05). Results: The average age of patients were 59.5 years. Phase I tumors accounted for 53.8 proc., 22.5 proc. in the IIA stage, other - 6,2 proc. Examination of the distribution of the groups according to the normal distribution, the data was statistically significant with each other (p < 0.05 ). A comparison between all of the groups in the following independent randomized Kruskal-Wallis test set to a statistically significant difference (p = 0,034). Using Mann-Whitney for a comparison of the approved test for tumors and tumors in the thermography tested group, a statistically significant difference (p = material) is not set. A comparison of the approved and certified as healthy groups, no statistically significant difference was founded (p = 0,388), and a comparison of the thermography detected tumors and healthy groups established a statistically significant difference (p < 0,005). The sensitivity of the thermography - 41.88 proc., specificity and accuracy accordingly 81.25 proc. and 61.56 proc. Thermography results of the comparison of the histological types shows that a fairly positive and false negative cases do not have statistically significant difference (p = 0,246). Conclusions: 1. Whole group, approved the breast tumor group, approved by the thermography group and the thermography of the healthy breast lesions did not differ between the groups statistically significantly. 2. The evaluation of thermography data shows what false negative diagnoses a statistically significant excess of the correct number of positive diagnoses (p. < 0.05). 3. The sensitivity of thermography - 41.88%, specificity and accuracy accordingly 81.25%-61.56%, 4. False positive and correct negative number of answers did not differ depending on the malignancy level of the tumor. 5. The evaluation of the stage I tumors were found more false negative results than on the other groups (p < 0,001)