B Hashemi - PhD, Department of Medical Physics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
F Hasanaj - MSc, Graduate, Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
M E Akbari - MD, Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciencs, Tehran, Iran
H R Mirzaei - MD, Cancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciencs, Tehran, Iran
M Mojtahed - MD, Department of Otolarygology, Imam-Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
M Bakhshandeh - PhD, Department of Radiology Technology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Background: Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer in women demanding accurate diagnosis to take remedial measures to treat.Objective: Comparing the diagnostic capability of the computer regulation thermography (CRT), as a novel and safe diagnostic procedure, with common methods including sonography, mammography and clinical examinations for diagnosing breast cancer in suspicious patients against pathology as the gold standard.Material and Methods: In this prospective clinical trial study, out of ۹۷ referred patients, ۴۴ meeting the inclusion criteria were selected. The selected patients were subjected to mammography, sonography, CRT and clinical examinations. Then, the patients showing suspicious symptoms of breast cancer underwent pathological examinations.Results: CRT indicated a higher specificity compared to mammography and sonography (۷۸.۹% vs. ۷۱.۴% and ۴۷.۰%, respectively). However, CRT sensitivity was lower than those of mammography, sonography and clinical examination (۵۲% vs. ۷۰.۶%, ۸۲.۴% and ۸۴.۰%). Furthermore, CRT accuracy was lower than mammography, sonography and clinical examination (۶۳.۶% vs. ۷۰.۹%, ۶۴.۷% and ۸۸.۶%). While CRT positive prediction value (PPV) was higher than those of mammography and sonography, it was lower than that of clinical examination (۷۶.۵% vs. ۷۵%, ۶۰.۹% and ۹۵.۵%). The negative prediction value (NPV) of CRT was less than all other modalities (۵۵.۵% vs. ۶۶.۷%, ۷۲.۷% and ۸۱.۸% for the clinical examination, mammography and sonography, respectively). Conclusion: Although CRT with a lower sensitivity and higher specificity, cannot be recommended to be used as a definitive diagnostic tool for breast cancer patients, it can be used as a complementary method with other methods to increase the diagnostic accuracy of suspicious patients.

Breast neoplasms, Thermography, Clinical Examination, Mammography, Ultrasonography, Pathology