Haberman cautioned that the findings of thermographic specificity could not be extrapolated from this study as it was well documented that long term observation (8to 10 years or more) is necessary to determine a true false positive rate. The authors noted tat 30% of the cancers found would not have been detected if it were not for thermography [45] Gros and Gautherie reported on a large scale study comprising 85,000 patients screened. Culmination of the data resulted in a 90% sensitivity and 88% specificity for thermography. [46-49].

In a large scale multi center review of nearly 70,000 woman screened, Jones reported a false negative and false positive rate of 13% (87% sensitivity) and 15% (85% specificity), respectively for thermography [50].

In a study performed in 1986, Usuki reported on the relation of thermo graphic findings in breast cancer diagnosis. He noted an 88% sensitivity for thermography in the detection of breast cancers [51].
Parisky and associated published a study from a multi center 4 year clinical trial using infrared imaging to evaluate mammographically suspicious lesions. Data from a blinded subject set was obtained in 769 women with 875 biopsied lesions resulting in 187 malignant and 688 benign findings. The index of suspicion resulted in a 97% sensitivity in the detection of breast cancers [52].

In a study comparing clinical examination, mammography, and thermography in the diagnosis of breast cancer, three groups of patients were used: 4716 patients with confirmed carcinoma, 3305 patients with histologically diagnosed benign breast disease, and 8757 general patients (16,778 total participants). This paper also compared clinical examination and mammography to other well known studies in the literature including the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored Breast Cancer Detection and Demonstration projects (BCDDPs). In this study, clinical examination had an average sensitivity of 75% in detecting all tumors and 50% in cancers less than 2 cm in size. This rate is exceptionally good when compared to many other studies at between 35 and 66% sensitivity. Mammography was found to have an average of 80% sensitivity and 73% specificity. Thermography had an average sensitivity of 88% (85%in tumors less than 1 cm in size) and specificity of 85%. An abnormal Thermogram was found to have a 94% predictive value. From the findings in this study, the authors suggested that “none of the techniques available for screening for breast carcinoma and evaluating patients with breast related symptoms is sufficiently accurate to be used alone. For the best results, a multimodal approach should be used [53]”.
In a series of 4000 confirmed breast cancers, Thomassin and associates observed 130 sub clinical carcinomas ranging in diameter of 3 to 5 mm. Both mammography and thermography were used alone and in combination. Of the 130 cancers, 10% were detected by mammography, 50% by thermography and 40% by both techniques. Thus, there was a thermal alarm in 90% of the patients and the only sign in 50% of the cases.(54)
In a simple review of over 15 large scale studies from 1967 to 1998, infrared imaging of the breast has showed an average sensitivity and specificity of 90%. With continued technological advances in infrared imaging in the past decade, some studies are showing even higher sensitivity and specificity values. However, until further large scale studies are performed, these findings remain in question.