Heat Transfer Analysis to Optimize Detection of
Breast Cancer
Danielle Klunk and John Munoz
Biomedical Engineering Department
Pennsylvania State University
State College, PA
Abstract— Breast Cancer affects many women each year,
with common methods of screening including Mammograms,
MRI and Thermography. In this study, a new method of
thermography using thermodilution techniques was explored
with the purpose of overcoming some of the respective limitations
of Mammograms, MRI’s and thermograms like that of
inaccessibility for pregnant and disabled women. Four specific
aims were proposed, the first focused on modeling varying breast
densities for accurate heat transfer analysis, the second and third
defined optimal parameters for varying tumor locations and
sizes, and the fourth verified visibility of malignant tissue when
using thermography. For the first aim, breast density was found
to not affect the ability for the new thermographic method to
detect thermal changes regardless of the size or location of the
tumor. The second aim found that tumors located closer to the
breast surface showed better detection with this thermographic
method. The third aim found that bigger sizes of tumors resulted
in higher and faster temperature changes resulting in better
detection of the tumor. The fourth aim looked at the practical
visibility of the model with results showing that most of the
theoretically detectible temperature changes could be seen when
looked upon. With these results discussion also included the
ethics of this solution, and the importance of patient awareness to
the limitations of this proposed method. Future steps would work
towards FDA approval of the continually improving
thermographic methods focused on helping patients incapable of
having traditional methods breast cancer screening.
I. INTRODUCTION
1 in every 8 American women will develop breast cancer
within their lifetime (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention). By the American Cancer Society’s estimates,
287,850 new cases will be diagnosed and 43,250 women will
lose their life this year due to breast cancer. While the fatality
rate has been steadily decreasing in women over 50, it has
remained steady in younger populations due to the majority of
women only being diagnosed after the age of 45 (American
Cancer Society). Some common methods of breast cancer
screening include Mammograms, Thermography and MRI’s.
While mammograms have been the standard method of breast
screening, this method has a history of causing discomfort
among patients, being inaccessible to pregnant and disabled
women, and having variable accuracy depending on breast
density (Fenneld). A recent development of breast cancer
screening is thermography, which uses thermal imaging to
determine the presence of abnormal masses by taking
advantage of the fact that tumor tissues conduct heat differently
from healthy tissue. However, this method is not yet FDA
approved due to its low resolution and sensitivity, so it is not
always able to show a malignant mass (Watson). The last
method is a specific form of breast MRIs that use a radioactive
contrast to highlight masses in the breast tissue. However, the
contrasts used are of radioactive material, and are not safe for
certain populations of women (Mayo Clinic). Therefore, this
analysis aims to refine current methods to develop a minimally
invasive technique accessible to a broader range of patients
with little discomfort.
To prioritize accessibility and patient comfort, this article will
focus on enhancing the effectiveness of thermography
methods, because it utilizes the least amount of radiation of
current methods and requires less contact to tender areas. In
order to maximize resolution, this new technique must enhance
the temperature differences between the tumor and surrounding
healthy tissue. To explore this idea, this article uses a previous
method known as transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD).
This method uses ice-cold injections of saline as a way to use
temperature to estimate the quantity of blood flow within a set
amount of time (“Thermodilution”). While this application
involves an injection, it remains less invasive than current
solutions because its injectate is simple saline rather than
radioactive material. Further, this method is commonly used in
pediatric spaces and thus has enough credibility to its safety
and effectiveness. Because this is a well-studied practice, the
medical community knows that little heat (or in this case,
cooler temperatures) dissipates within larger vessels. However,
this can’t be said for smaller vessels such as those found in
capillary beds of tumors. So, by using TPTD’s method of ice-
cold saline injection, the boundaries of tumors can be
highlighted due to their high concentration of capillaries
around their surface area. Thus, tumors will show up on
thermograms as a cold spot due to their distinct differences in
temperature caused by the clustering of capillaries and heat
dissipation of the cold injections.
In order to show an improvement upon current thermography
methods as well as relative similarity to current mammogram
technology, this solution has four specific aims. The first is to
model varying breast densities for accurate heat transfer
analysis, the second and third to define optimal parameters for
varying tumor locations and sizes, respectively, and the fourth
to verify visibility of malignant tissue when using
thermography.
To achieve our specific aims, we must be able to model
precisely what a thermogram would be able to detect as well as
varying properties of tumors and breast types. The average
temperature monitor is able to measure heat at a depth of 2mm
beneath the skin and has a resolution of .2 degrees Celsius
(Gurjarpadhye). This means that changes in temperature due to
the tumor must reach this area and be of at least .2 degrees less
than its initial value to be a valid reading. To ensure this,
results will contain a graph showing the temperature of this
point over time and mark where results reach this minimum
change in temperature.
Additionally, breast tumor sizes have a wide range of values.
Stages of tumor growth are divided into three subgroups based
on diameters. T1 tumors have diameters less than 2 cm, T2
tumors have diameters less than 5 cm, and T3 tumors have
diameters greater than 5 cm. Typically, mammograms are able
to find tumors at around an average size of 1.2 cm, and
advanced technologies have been developed to find tumors as
small as .7cm (Holland). To determine if our method of
thermography can detect similar types of tumors, we use three
separate diameter values of 2.6cm, 1.3 cm, and .65cm.
Another important factor we wish to consider is the variability
of breast densities among the average population. It is well
known that mammograms have more difficulty detecting
tumors among women with dense breasts, so it is important to
distinguish whether this technique will be able to perform
better among these individuals. Breast densities are divided
into four levels based on the ratio of glands to fat tissue
present. Level one individuals have less than 25% glandular
tissue, while level 2 varies from 25 to 50%. Similarly, level 3
varies from 50 to 75% glandular tissue and level 4 comprises
individuals with greater than 75% glandular tissue (Frost). The
presence of glands in this area affects not only average density,
but average heat capacity and thermal conductivity throughout
the breast as well (Lozano). To accommodate for these
differences, the following values are used for each group:
Table 1: Breast Groups and Thermal Values
Group Density Thermal Conductivity Heat Capacity
1 1035.8 .324 3035
2 1033.1 .3255 3023
3 1027.9 .3265 2993
4 1025.3 .328 2985
** These values are calculated based on values obtained from
Scientific Reports
 II. RESULTS
A. Modeling Varying Breast Types
To determine if this method is viable for different breast types,
a 2-Dimensional breast model displays the heat transfer from
the ice-cold boundary of the tumor for each group. To display
the variations between these groups, figures 1 and 2 display the
temperature variation over time at a point 2mm beneath the
skin and the temperature distribution after 180 seconds,
respectively.
Figure 1: Temperature variation with respect to time of varying
breast groups with identical sizes and location of tumors. A) Group 1
variation, depicting the group with the lowest presence of glandular
tissue. B) Group 2 variation, C) Group 3 Variation, D) Group 4
variation, depicting the group with the highest presence of glandular
tissue.
The data of figure 1 comes from tumors of identical location,
with varying sizes and surrounding densities. The results show
that across all groups, the temperature variation remains the
same over time for all sizes. No matter the breast group, the
tumors result in the same end temperatures, as well as
variation over time.
Figure 2: Temperature distribution after 180 seconds at identical
locations among all breast groups. A) Group 1 variation, depicting
the group with the lowest presence of glandular tissue. B) Group 2
variation, C) Group 3 Variation, D) Group 4 variation, depicting the
group with the highest presence of glandular tissue.
Figure 2 shows the cross sectional views of the tumor
surrounded by varying group values after 180 seconds. These
figures show that temperature distribution throughout the
tissue is identical for each group, with no group having a
limiting effect on the cooling boundary of the tumor. These
results were the same for all tumor sizes and locations, so we
may conclude that breast types do not impact temperature
distribution and thus the ability to detect tumors with this
method.
B. Varying Tumor Locations
To determine the optimal depths of tumors with this method,
we utilize similar methods to depict temperature variation and
distribution among the same breast group and tumor size with
varying tumor locations. Figures 3 and 4 depict these results.
Figure 3 shows how temperature varies with respect to time as
well as location. Although all data sets depict the same size
tumor within the same group, the location greatly affects the
end temperature closer to the skin. Focusing on the medium-
sized tumor, we can see that its end temperature varies from
309.95 deepest into the skin to just below 307 when it’s closer
to the skin. This variation of about 3.5 K can make the
difference between a tumor showing up in a thermography
screening and not.
Figure 4 shows how the location of these tumors changes the
temperature of the surface. As expected, tumors deeper into
the breast aren’t able to affect surface temperature as much.
This will cause difficulty for thermography to be able to detect
tumors not as close to the surface.

Figure 3: Temperature variation with respect to time at varying
locations of A) 1 in from the chest, B) 1.25 in from the chest, and C)
1.5 in from the chest
Figure 4: Temperature distribution after 180 seconds at varying
locations of A) 1 in from the chest, B) 1.25 in from the chest, and C)
1.5 in from the chest
C. Varying Tumor Sizes
To determine how changing tumor size affects this method we
analyze which sizes reached the minimum detectable
temperature of 309.8 K. Figure 5 shows the cut off of 309.8 as
a dashed line for the locations of 1 in, 1.25 in and 1.5 in.
Figure 5: Temperature distribution with respect to time at varying
locations of A) 1 in from the chest, B) 1.25 in from the chest, and C)
1.5 in from the chest. The dotted lines indicate the point at which
thermography can distinguish a change in temperature
As expected, an increase in tumor size or a closer position to
the surface increases the ability for this method to detect the
tumor. The smallest size tested was detected when the tumor
was located at 1.5 in. The medium size tumor was able to be
detected at both the 1.25 in and 1.5 in positions. Lastly, the
largest tumor was able to be detected at every position. Size
was not affected with changing density as discussed in the
varying density section.
D. Assessing Visibility through Thermography
To explore the visibility of this new method during the
thermograph a 3D model of the tumor-breast system was
created. This model follows all the same parameters as the 2-D
model and simulates the results that would be seen in practice.
These are displayed in figures 6 to 8.
Figure 6: 3D model with small tumor after 320 seconds of exposure
to ice cold saline. Tumor located at A) 1 inch from the chest, B) 1.25
inch from the chest, and C) 1.5 inch from the chest
Figure 6 shows how a thermograph would look for small tumor
sizes at the farthest, middle and closest locations. In this figure
the model C shows a slight temperature change in the
lowermost quadrant. The other two models (A and B) show no
change to the temperature which is consistent with the 2D
model described in Aims 2 and 3. A constant density is shown
across the models.
Figure 7: 3D model with medium tumor after 320 seconds of
exposure to ice cold saline. Tumor located at A) 1 inch from the
chest, B) 1.25 inch from the chest, and C) 1.5 inch from the chest
Figure 7 shows how a thermograph would look for medium
tumor sizes at the farthest, middle and closest locations. In this
figure, model C shows temperature changes in the lowermost
quadrant. Model B is supposed to show a temperature change
as predicted by the 2D model, however in practicality the
changes in temperature are difficult to see. The other model
(A) shows no change to the temperature which is consistent
with the 2D model described in Aims 2 and 3. A constant
density is shown across the models as breast density.
Figure 8: 3D model with large tumor after 320 seconds of exposure
to ice cold saline. Tumor located at A) 1 inch from the chest, B) 1.25
inch from the chest, and C) 1.5 inch from the chest
Figure 8 shows how a thermograph would look for large tumor
sizes at the farthest, middle and closest locations. In this figure,
all the models show temperature changes in the lowermost
quadrant which is consistent with the 2D model described in
Aims 2 and 3. A constant density is shown across the models.
 III. DISCUSSION
Our results show no variation in temperature between breast
groups. This shows that presence of increased glandular tissue
has no effect on temperature distribution, and therefore won’t
affect how thermography is able to visualize the malignant
tissue. This is a considerable benefit to our method when
compared to mammograms, whose main limitation is its ability
to see through dense tissue. Additionally, this data is supported
by previous thermogram studies, which explains that
thermography is independent of breast dense tissue because it
is a test of physiology rather than visibility.
Results show a decreased ability to affect surface temperature
when tumors are deep into the breast tissue. This is expected,
since saline can only be cooled to 0 degrees celsius before
freezing, and this temperature is only able to dissipate so far
into surrounding tissue at body temperature. However, this
limits thermography to tumors within a certain depth of the
surface, whereas mammograms are able to image the entire
breast.
Changing tumor size found similar results to that of
mammograms. Mammograms most commonly find T2
(diameters less than 5 cm) and T3 (diameters greater than 5
cm) tumors which is consistent with the results seen in both the
2D and 3D models. The models show that even the T1
(diameters less than 2 cm) tumors were detected when located
optimally.T2 tumors were not seen at the farthest depth
whereas T3 tumors were found most consistently even at the
farthest depth from the surface. Mammograms tend to be more
consistent than thermography at detecting the T1 and T2
tumors, however T3 tumors have resulted as being optimal for
this thermographic method.
Visibility in the thermographic simulations showed similar
results to that of the theoretical 2D simulation. In the 3D model
the thermal solutions could be seen through the perspective of
a thermal camera. Although the T3 tumor size could be easily
seen through the naked eye, the simulations showed that for T2
and T1 sizes these changes were harder to see. It is likely that
computer processing of the images would be needed to detect
the smaller changes in temperatures like seen in deeper or
smaller sized tumors. This processing would then amplify the
visibility of the site for the benefit of the physician.
Based on our results, thermography is comparable to
mammography but not a completely better solution. Thus,
thermography can be discussed as an alternative for patients
but not a complete replacement for the current use of
mammography. This situation brings up the ethical principles
of autonomy and beneficence. To ensure autonomy, patients
should receive a thorough unbiased explanation of the risks and
benefits of thermography in comparison to mammography. For
instance, patients should note that thermography is better able
to detect malignant tissue within dense breasts, but has lesser
accuracy for deep and small masses of malignant tissue.
Additionally, while mammography may cause discomfort and
lead to radiation exposure, it is able to view the entire breast
with higher resolution. However, mammography remains
inaccessible to certain populations, such as pregnant women
and those with disabilities, so thermography should be
discussed more in depth to display its abilities and limitations
for these groups. In regards to beneficence, this technology is
able to both prevent harm and promote good. By developing a
limitedly invasive solution, thermography is able to contribute
to the reduction of radiation exposure to patients. Additionally,
thermography’s accessibility allows more individuals to
receive breast screenings at less expense, which promotes
good.
IV. CONCLUSION
Overall, thermography in combination with thermodilution has
proven to be a viable alternative to mammography but not a
sufficient overall replacement. This proposed method has
surpassed mammography in its accessibility to populations
who cannot face radiation exposure or have relatively dense
breast tissue. However, its detection is limited by a tumor’s
depth and size, as it has shown an inability to detect smaller
sizes deeper within tissue. Because this method has increased
resolution of previous thermography methods, and more
closely rivals mammography techniques, the FDA has a higher
likelihood to approve this method as a valid form of breast
cancer screening. However, this approval must acknowledge
the technology’s shortcomings as well as its improvement in
accessibility. Because this method is not 100% effective but
still is important for accessibility and costs, perhaps this
method may be encouraged for introductory screenings for low
risk individuals. This way, we are able to encourage
individuals to do more breast screenings regularly, but still
retain mammogram technology for individuals who seem to
have a positive result from thermography or those who are at
high risk. To ensure patients fully understand the difference
between these two technologies, they should be informed about
the benefits and risks of each through a prior consultation so
they may decide which method is best for them. This way, we
ensure both autonomy and beneficence so we may increase
understanding of breast screenings as well as their prevalence
and accessibility to women.
V. REFERENCES
[1] “Breast Cancer in Young Women.” Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 27 Sept. 2021,
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/breast/young_women/bringyourbrave/breas
t_cancer_young_women/index.htm#:~:text=About%201%20in%208%2
0women,than%2045%20years%20of%20age.
[2] “Breast Cancer Statistics: How Common Is Breast Cancer?” American
Cancer Society, https://www.cancer.org/cancer/breast-
cancer/about/how-common-is-breast-
cancer.html#:~:text=Trends%20in%20breast%20cancer%20deaths&text
=The%20chance%20that%20a%20woman,down%20by%201%25%20p
er%20year.
[3] “Dense Breasts.” Thermapproach,
https://www.thermapproach.com/dense-breasts.
[4] Fenneld. “Thermography vs. Mammography.” Cleveland Clinic,
Cleveland Clinic, 20 Aug. 2021,
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/thermography-vs-mammography-
what-are-the-differences-and-is-one-better-than-the-other/.
[5] Frost, Mollie. “Making More Sense of Breast Density.” ACP Internist, 1
June 2020, https://acpinternist.org/archives/2020/06/making-more-
sense-of-breast-
density.htm#:~:text=Per%20the%20Breast%20Imaging%20Reporting,gl
andular%20tissue)%3B%20and%20D.
[6] Gurjarpadhye, Abhijit Achyut et al. “Infrared Imaging Tools for
Diagnostic Applications in Dermatology.” SM journal of clinical and
medical imaging vol. 1,1 (2015): 1-5.
[7] Holland, Kimberly. “Breast Cancer Tumor Size Chart: Staging, Growth,
& Treatment.” Healthline, Healthline Media, 17 Aug. 2021,
https://www.healthline.com/health/breast-cancer/breast-cancer-tumor-
size-chart.
[8] Kamal, Abu Hena Md. Mustafa, et al. “Modeling of Breast Tissue with
Tumor Inclusion.” IST Journal on Business & Technology, vol. 8, no. 1,
pp. 21–26.
[9] Lozano, A., Hayes, J.C., Compton, L.M. et al. Determining the thermal
characteristics of breast cancer based on high-resolution infrared
imaging, 3D breast scans, and magnetic resonance imaging. Sci Rep 10,
10105 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66926-6
[10] Lynne Eldridge, MD. “How Fast Does Breast Cancer Grow and
Spread?” Verywell Health, Verywell Health, 3 Nov. 2021,
https://www.verywellhealth.com/breast-cancer-growth-rate-
4175666#:~:text=The%20average%20size%20of%20a,do%20not%20do
%20self%2Dexams.
[11] “Molecular Breast Imaging.” Mayo Clinic, Mayo Foundation for
Medical Education and Research, 16 Apr. 2020,
https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/molecular-breast-
imaging/about/pac-20394710.
[12] Singh, Sundeep, and Ramjee Repaka. “Quantification of Thermal Injury
to the Healthy Tissue Due to Imperfect Electrode Placements during
Radiofrequency Ablation of Breast Tumor.” ASME Digital Collection,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection, 7 Nov.
2017,
https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/medicaldiagnostics/article/1/1/01
1002/380391/Quantification-of-Thermal-Injury-to-the-Healthy.
[13] “Thermodilution.” Thermodilution - an Overview, ScienceDirect
Topics, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-
dentistry/thermodilution.
[14] Watson, Stephanie. “Thermography: Procedure, Risks, Cost, and More.”
Healthline, Healthline Media, 15 Nov. 2019,
https://www.healthline.com/health/breast-
cancer/thermography#thermography-vs-mammography.
VI. METHODS
The simulations of this report utilize 2D and 3D models of
breast tissue. Both models have concentric sections of skin, fat,
and breast tissue composed of a combination of healthy breast
fat and glands, which can be seen in figure 9.
Figure 9: Geometries of both the 2D (left) and 3D models where the
3D model has a cross section to show the inner dimensions of the
model.
The overall breast radius is defined based on the global average
of breast sizes being around B to C, making the average breast
radius about 2 to 3 inches (5 to 7.5 cm). The skin tissue
segment has a width of .08 inches (.2 cm), and the fat tissue a
width of .2 inches (.5cm) based on typical measurements of
cross sectioned skin tissue. Our model also incorporates a point
2mm beneath the surface to measure temperature at the deepest
point a thermogram would be able to penetrate.
The choice to use both 2 and 3 dimensional models was to
focus on the needs of the studies we were running. 3
dimensional models were necessary to accurately depict how a
thermograph would display the temperature differences on the
tissue surface. However, these dimensions were unnecessary
for other studies which just required the temperature
distribution as a function of radius in time. These results were
better simulated in 2 dimensional models to save calculation
time as well as increase to finer meshes and achieve higher
accuracy.
Table 2: Additional values used in simulations
Radius Outer Skin 6.45 (cm)
Radius Tumor Large 1.29 (cm)
Radius Tumor Medium .65 (cm)
Radius Tumor Small .33 (cm)
Radius of Fat 6.27 (cm)
Radius Soft Tissue 5.81 (cm)
Density of Fat 911 (kg/m^3)
Density of Skin 1116 (kg/m^3)
Density of healthy breast 1020 (kg/m^3)
Density of glandular tissue 1041 (kg/m^3)
The heat transfer equation of the 2D model is modified to fit
the cylindrical coordinate system and the assumption of
constant thermal conductivity. The height of the cylinder is
considered zero, the energy generated is zero and phi is limited
from 0 to 180 degrees accounting for the half circle simulation
of the breast and between 0 to 360 degrees for the tumor. This
results in the equation below.
Figure 10: simplified cylindrical heat transfer for 2D geometry
The heat transfer for the 3D solution includes a spherical
solution (assuming constant thermal conductivity) for a
hemisphere which applies to both the tumor and the rest of the
breast. This simplifies the equation by limiting theta from 0 to
180 degrees. Furthermore, we can also neglect the energy
being formed from this model resulting in the simplified
equation in figure 11.

Figure 11: simplified spherical heat transfer for 3D geometry
For all simulations, all temperatures are set at a default body
temperature of 310K. The boundary of the tumor is set to
273.15K for the duration of the simulation. This is because
angiogenesis around tumors is heightened to a point where we
assume that capillaries completely surround the malignant
tissue of interest. For our studies, we assume the heat transfer
from the rest of the capillaries within the breast tissue is
negligible due to their density compared to the tumor's. We
also assume that this boundary temperature remains constant
because we can ensure this through adjusting the volume of
ice-cold saline injectate. Further, we assume that the breast
tissue beyond the skin and fat layers has a uniform heat
capacity, density, and conductivity constant since the ratios of
glandular tissues to fat tissues were accounted for in
calculations of these values for varying groups. Finally, we
assume steady state is reached at 320 seconds, which is where
we found changes in surface temperature to begin to diminish.