What you probably already know: A host of for-profit companies are touting full-body MRI screenings. “Don’t just hope you’re healthy. Prep for it,” one company says. Another marketing pitch: “Our scan helps screen for hundreds of conditions.” But new commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is again raising longstanding concerns about the booming business of elective whole-body MRI scans. In the article, headlined “Elective MRI screening of the general public — buyer beware,” radiologists Matthew S. Davenport and Scott B. Reeder argue that companies marketing full-body magnetic resonance imaging as a preventive health tool are making sweeping promises without evidence of their effectiveness.
Why it matters: Private MRI screening companies are rapidly expanding across the United States, fueled by growing consumer interest in preventive medicine and early cancer detection. More than 100,000 consumers have now undergone elective whole body MRI scans, which are rarely, if ever, covered by insurance when done for general purposes and can cost up to $4,000. Most of those companies market the scans directly to consumers using slogans emphasizing the possibility of finding hidden diseases before symptoms appear. “The promise is peace of mind or a life saved by early detection,” the authors write. “If it works, it would be remarkable. But does it?”
What it means: In most cases, it does not. JAMA notes that no major medical society recommends whole-body MRI screening in the general population because “it is unproven, and the harms likely outweigh the benefits.” Even simple screening tests can lead to harm, such as bleeding during a biopsy or colon perforation during a colonoscopy. The National Library of Medicine “strongly” discourages MRI screening for cancer in asymptomatic patients, though it did find “some encouraging results” in high-risk populations for some forms of cancer. Seattle-based Fred Hutch Cancer Center has found that many protocols adopted by some companies don’t adhere to national care standards, adding that differences in examination techniques “are a concern.”
What happens next: “The principles behind a screening test are that it should be relatively inexpensive, relatively accessible and minimally invasive,” says Brian N. Dontchos, MD, a Fred Hutch and UW Medicine breast imaging specialist. “It should be able to detect cancer before the disease is clinically apparent.” JAMA adds that “a strange fact about imaging tests is that benign, slow-growing and risky diseases often look the same,” creating uncertainty that can lead to unnecessary biopsies, endoscopies, surgeries and other procedures. “People have to the right to make informed decisions about their health,” the authors write. “If you are considering buying this test, our advice is buyer beware. You may lose more than just your money.”
