Abstract PS5-10-15: Comparing User Experience Between AI-powered Thermal Test and Mammography: Results from a Single Center Study

Abstract Background: Mammography remains the gold standard for breast cancer screening but is associated with notable discomfort due to breast compression and concerns over ionizing radiation. Prior studies indicate that 25-46% of women report moderate to severe pain, and anxiety related to mammography as a key reason for avoidance. Additionally, perceived invasiveness and privacy concerns can deter women from regular screening. Thermalytix is a novel, non-contact, radiation-free screening modality combining thermal imaging with artificial intelligence (AI)-based analysis. This privacy-preserving approach was developed to enhance user comfort and reduce barriers to participation. Thermalytix has been shown earlier to have good sensitivity and specificity when compared with standard imaging methods [1,2]. We report a single institution comparative user experience between Thermalytix and standard mammography, as a post hoc analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05650086. Methods: In a single-center prospective study at the University of Arizona Cancer Center, 115 women underwent both mammography and Thermalytix scans. Following both procedures, participants completed a standardized survey evaluating three experience parameters on a 1-5 Likert scale (5 = most favorable), (i) Comfort level during the procedure (ii) Level of anxiety experienced and (iii) Perceived time taken for the screening. Participants were also asked about their overall preference between the two modalities and any reason for preferring one test over the other. Results: (A) Overall Response:A total of 115 women participated. Of these, • 12 women did not complete the survey • 25 gave similar scores (within 10%) for both tests • 78 gave clear preferences, wherein 73 favored Thermalytix, 5 favored mammography. (B) Quantitative Ratings:Average scores on a 1-5 Likert scale (5 = most favorable) for key experience parameters were: • Comfort: Thermalytix 4.3, Mammography 2.4 • Anxiety: Thermalytix 4.4, Mammography 3.3 • Time Perception: Thermalytix 4.5, Mammography 4.1 We computed Pareto Average as a sum of individual scores and used that as a consolidated preference, and the Pareto Average of Thermalytix was 10.79 (range: 9-15) while Mammography got 7.6 (range: 4-10) (C) Qualitative Insights: Among 66 participants with text comments in their response, the following were the insights: • 57 (86.4%) explicitly preferred Thermalytix over Mammography • 5 preferred mammography, as they were unsure about the results of new AI-based test • 4 women had equivocal comments about both the tests • Top reasons from women who elaborated their preference for Thermalytix included: o No pain (17), Comfort (18), No compression (11), Radiation-free (6), Easy/relaxed (5), Private/no-touch (4) • 3 Thermalytix-preferring women noted it felt cold Conclusion: In this small US Based cohort, Thermalytix has shown numerically better ratings in comfort and lower anxiety with the test. It compared similar in terms of time needed to do the testing. Majority of participants seemed to prefer a no-contact, non-ionizing radiation approach to breast screening. Citation Format: S. S. Kraus, A. Moreno, A. Carrier, P. Zimemrman, D. Roe, P. Chalasani. Comparing User Experience Between AI-powered Thermal Test and Mammography: Results from a Single Center Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-10-15 References: 1. Bansal R et al, A prospective evaluation of breast thermography enhanced by a novel machine learning technique for screening breast abnormalities in a general population, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 2022 [ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04688086] 2. Kakileti, S. T et al, Observational study to evaluate the clinical efficacy of thermalytix for detecting breast cancer in symptomatic and asymptomatic women. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020