Medical imaging service in a hospital in Savoie, France. Two technicians set up a patient for an MRI scan. (Photo by: BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Universal Images Group via Getty Images
The trend of whole-body scans using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or ultrasound is rising, with companies and influencers promoting them as “lifesaving.” While these scans may provide reassurance for some, they can also lead to false security or unnecessary anxiety and follow-up procedures. For those without symptoms, these scans are generally not regarded as worthwhile.
Direct-to-consumer advertisements and messages from social media influencers promoting full-body scans are becoming more common. Companies claim these scans offer simple, non-invasive methods to detect cancer or other issues like aneurysms before they become problematic.
Despite the marketing, no major medical organizations, such as the American Cancer Society and American College of Radiology, endorse these scans for individuals without specific risk factors, like a high likelihood of certain cancers.
MRIs are typically used to examine specific parts of the body. For example, a breast MRI might be suggested for someone showing symptoms or for a person at high risk of developing breast cancer. These MRIs create detailed images of the specific area under examination.
Conversely, a full-body scan captures images of the entire body in a single session, which can be performed using MRI or ultrasound. Ultrasound, also known as sonography, is a non-invasive imaging technique that uses sound waves to produce images of the body’s interior, often used in prenatal monitoring and other diagnostic purposes.
The cost of full-body scans varies depending on the imaging type, generally ranging from $1,000 and $3,500, and they are often not covered by health insurance.
Medical experts largely oppose widespread use of whole-body scans, citing a lack of clinical and cost-effectiveness. A major concern is the possibility of incidental findings leading to further tests such as computed tomography scans, exposing the patient to ionizing radiation and potential biopsy complications, without any real symptoms present. This can cause unnecessary stress and a waste of resources.
The American College of Radiology has stated there is not enough evidence to support total body screening for patients who show no clinical symptoms, have no risk factors, or lack a family history of underlying disease.
Jason Ryan, a cardiologist and the creator of Boards and Beyond — an online educational platform for medical students — suggests that while whole-body imaging might identify abnormal or diseased tissue that can be treated early, often it reveals normal tissue that appears abnormal, harmless abnormal tissue best left alone, or untreatable, lethal abnormalities.
In the context of screening healthy, asymptomatic individuals who are not at high risk, the likelihood of identifying treatable abnormal tissue is quite low. Ryan argues that the chances of findings leading to invasive follow-up tests that do more harm than good are far greater. This concern extends beyond individual patients, potentially overwhelming clinics and hospitals.
Experts also point out that MRIs are not typically used as the first step in routine diagnostic workups. Instead, after a patient provides their medical history and undergoes a physical examination, MRIs are used to confirm or rule out specific diseases or conditions as part of a differential diagnosis.
Ultrasound scans present their own challenges. Venk Murthy, a physician and faculty member at the University of Michigan Medical School, writes that ultrasounds can struggle to provide clear images due to interference from bones, air, or movement in the digestive tract.
Any diagnostic testing, including whole-body scans, should offer a net benefit before being used on asymptomatic individuals. In this context, screening should not turn generally healthy individuals, sometimes referred to as the “worried well,” into patients.
William Kissick, a late professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, once wrote, “a healthy individual can be defined as someone who has been inadequately studied.” This notion aligns with the idea that the harder one looks for a disease, the more likely one is to find something, regardless of its relevance to the patient’s health.
