Diagnostic accuracy study compares active and passive infrared thermography for skin lesions, suggesting active gives better results.
Background: Infrared thermography has emerged as a non-invasive imaging modality capable of capturing physiological alterations associated with skin cancer; however, its diagnostic utility remains insufficiently characterized. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of active (cooling-induced) and passive infrared thermography in distinguishing benign from malignant skin lesions. Methods: In this clinical study conducted at Barretos Cancer Hospital, 64 individuals contributed 100 skin lesions, of which 68 (56 malignant, 12 benign) met criteria for diagnostic accuracy analysis. Long-wave infrared images were acquired under steady-state conditions (passive thermography) and after standardized cooling (active thermography). Diagnostic performance was assessed using thermal contrast patterns and temperature differentials (ΔT), with histopathology as the reference standard. Results: Active thermography markedly outperformed passive imaging. Active thermography achieved a sensitivity of 91.1% and specificity of 75.0%, whereas passive thermography demonstrated low sensitivity (17.9%) despite perfect specificity (100%). Malignant lesions displayed substantially higher ΔT values, particularly during active thermal recovery. ROC analysis confirmed the superiority of the active technique (AUC = 0.871) over passive imaging (AUC = 0.650), with an optimal ΔT cutoff of 0.70 °C yielding high discriminative accuracy. Conclusions: Active infrared thermography enhances thermal contrast and provides significantly improved diagnostic sensitivity compared with passive imaging. As a low-cost, non-invasive technique, active thermography shows promise as a complementary tool for skin cancer triage, particularly in settings with limited access to dermatologic evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Malheiros et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: