Would you want to get an elective MRI (full body scan) just to know what is going on inside your body (see full description of MRI below)?

[StaceyKim]

MRI is a non-invasive, sophisticated diagnostic imaging technique that utilizes a strong magnetic field in conjunction with low energy electromagnetic waves to produce high-resolution images of internal body organs and tissue from any angle and direction and without surgical invasion. MRI has proven to be invaluable to the diagnosis of a broad range of conditions, including

brain tumors;
disorders of the eyes and inner ear;
cancer;
stroke and heart disease; and
Joint and musculoskeletal disorders and diseases of the knee, shoulder, spine, hips, wrists and hands, where it allows evaluation of parts of the body not possible with other imaging techniques.


Importance of MRI

MRI is painless and has no known side effects.
It usually reveals more details than other imaging modalities. Usually there is a clear distinction between healthy and diseased tissue on MRI.
Harmful effects of radiation are avoided.


btw: i am not a doctor, nor is my dh. no one in my family/dh family performs MRI's.
TIA!


ETA: i probably wouldn't get a MRI either! i put the above info in the email in case someone didn't know what a MRI was, etc.

[Calmegja2]

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/601_ct.html

It's not quite as simple as saying that there are no risks to full body scans, though this article references CT scans.

The issue is, though many of the MRI risks are considered theoretical ( with issue for pregnant women and those with internal metalwork), it may invite additional and unnecessary worry and excessive and invasive diagnostic testing.


http://www.integrarx.com/news/article.asp?articleid=4934

[Saccade]

In my medical opinion, no. Such screening MRIs often reveal findings of unknown significance that may or may not be abnormalities and that do not relate to any health problems that the scanned person is having. These findings can cause unneeded worry and stress, and may prompt further invasive and costly workups that themselves have harmful side effects.

It's kind of similar to the whole situation described in the choroid plexus thread. Sometimes our imaging technology gives up results that we don't know how to interpret meaningfully.

DS #1, 7/13/05
http://tickers.baby-gaga.com/t/eleeleabk20050713_-8_My+child+is.png[/img][/url]

Join us in the BBB Knit and Crochet Club:
http://s14.invisionfree.com/BBB_Knitters

[californiagirl]

Most people don't have anything serious wrong with them. The big risk is that they're going to see something that looks funny, and then you're going to want to do something about it. But the chances are it just looks funny, it didn't need more tests or treatment, and every test and treatment has a cost and a risk. So I definitely wouldn't bother.

[nupe]

I did have an MRI of my brain years ago, when I served as a control in a study--that is blinded so the images are not linked to me. Technology is so advanced now, it is probably an entirely different procedure. However I did see an article in my local paper a few months back about how there are increasing injuries related to MRI (randome items that get near the magnet that shouldn't).

The reasons I say no:

1--Incidental findings may lead to more invasive risky work-ups that would otherwise not have been indicated.
2--Wouldn't want these findings to prevent you from (perhaps in the future) qualifying for life insurance/health insurance, etc.
3--You didn't comment on whether or not IV contrast would be used, but that also poses mild risks.


Nupe

[jbowman]

>However I did see an article
>in my local paper a few months back about how there are
>increasing injuries related to MRI (randome items that get
>near the magnet that shouldn't).

I saw a similar article as well (looked for the link, but can't find it). With my luck, a heavy chair would be attracted to the machine just as I was going into it.

[Saccade]

>>However I did see an article
>>in my local paper a few months back about how there are
>>increasing injuries related to MRI (randome items that get
>>near the magnet that shouldn't).
>
>I saw a similar article as well (looked for the link, but
>can't find it). With my luck, a heavy chair would be
>attracted to the machine just as I was going into it.
>

LOL!

True, these things happen. There are some great photos here:

http://www.simplyphysics.com/flying_objects.html




DS #1, 7/13/05
http://tickers.baby-gaga.com/t/eleeleabk20050713_-8_My+child+is.png[/img][/url]

Join us in the BBB Knit and Crochet Club:
http://s14.invisionfree.com/BBB_Knitters

[Toba]

I've had more MRIs (for a serious head injury, back and neck problems and shoulder/shoulder blade pain) than I care to remember over the years ... most recently, about nine months ago where I was on the verge of having a panic attack while having my cervical spine studied (so my head/face was in the center of the tube ... claustrophobic much?). I hate them like poison.

I am, however, interested in getting a PET scan (my husband's hospital just bought one last year) I have a very strong family history of breast and female organ cancer. I just keep putting it off.


~Kimberly Anne~
Noah Nevan, March 12, 2004
*the light of my life*

[brittone2]

Nope. Like anything else that is a screening, there's a chance that *something* will be detected, which can lead to all sorts of needs for workups, biopsies etc. for absolutely nothing. The MRI has *some* risk associated with it, but then you couple that with the potential for risks relating to unnecessary workups/procedures (not to mention cost) and it increases the risk a bit more, kwim?

I am partially torn though because I had a paternal aunt (totally a non smoker other than a few years in college like many people) who was the picture of health (very active, super healthy eater, very thin build, etc.) and ended up w/ a slight cough that wouldn't go away. She got checked out and long story short it was stage 4 lung cancer. Lung cancer is so so so hard to detect before it becomes very severe and for it to show up on a regular x-ray, it usually indicates it is quite advanced. She lived about a year afterward which was way more than they anticipated. There have been some studies showing helical/spiral CT scans can pick up lung cancer in early stages, but it hasn't become a recommended screening tool because of the relatively high chance of false positives, leading to biopsies, etc. which with lungs is quite risky. But she didn't fit any profile for anyone to know to look for it in her before that. We have some other cancer risks in my family as well. I worry very much about my dad, who smoked for many years and still does smoke once a day or so now. Part of me would like to see him get checked, but I don't think he ever will. So...while I would say no, I probably wouldn't do it, I sort of partially wish my dad would get the helical/spiral CT :(

I think we're going to be faced w/ a lot of these questions as technology improves and we have more access to our checking our genetics, etc.

[brittone2]

sorry!

[brittone2]

sheesh! computer problems :(

[bcafe]

I am in Nuclear Medicine and we do PET scans. Just a side note on using them for "screening", many insurances won't cover them. But as a peace of mind, that may not be an issue. Our scans alone cost ~$2400, the dose is ~$600, and then there is a reading fee. Just a thought. However, when weighed against the possibility of cancer, it is obviously a very personal decision.

ETA: They are very cool to look at. Is the scanner a PET/CT?

Betsy

[Saccade]

>I am partially torn though because I had a paternal aunt
>(totally a non smoker other than a few years in college like
>many people) who was the picture of health (very active, super
>healthy eater, very thin build, etc.) and ended up w/ a slight
>cough that wouldn't go away. She got checked out and long
>story short it was stage 4 lung cancer. Lung cancer is so so
>so hard to detect before it becomes very severe and for it to
>show up on a regular x-ray, it usually indicates it is quite
>advanced. She lived about a year afterward which was way more
>than they anticipated. There have been some studies showing
>helical/spiral CT scans can pick up lung cancer in early
>stages, but it hasn't become a recommended screening tool
>because of the relatively high chance of false positives,
>leading to biopsies, etc. which with lungs is quite risky.
>But she didn't fit any profile for anyone to know to look for
>it in her before that. We have some other cancer risks in my
>family as well. I worry very much about my dad, who smoked
>for many years and still does smoke once a day or so now.
>Part of me would like to see him get checked, but I don't
>think he ever will. So...while I would say no, I probably
>wouldn't do it, I sort of partially wish my dad would get the
>helical/spiral CT :(
>
>I think we're going to be faced w/ a lot of these questions as
>technology improves and we have more access to our checking
>our genetics, etc.

Beth, while screening MRIs are (probably) not effective in improving health outcomes in the general population, there are studies underway to see whether screening does in fact make sense in subpopulations with pre-existing risk factors (like smoking or genes). They'll just take a while to pan out, since they measure increased survival as the outcome, and thus require years of tracking large groups of folks.

E to insert (probably)

DS #1, 7/13/05
http://tickers.baby-gaga.com/t/eleeleabk20050713_-8_My+child+is.png[/img][/url]

Join us in the BBB Knit and Crochet Club:
http://s14.invisionfree.com/BBB_Knitters

[Toba]

Trust me, we couldn't afford the $2400 to drop on that ... I don't think most people could unfortunately (which is sad because they really are great at screening for cancer). My husband is a director of two large area hospitals, and we get "freebies." All of my U/Ss and Level IIs (and I had MANY of them, as I was considered high risk) were covered (we didn't pay a dime). I feel very fortunate that we have that technology at our disposal.

I've actually never seen one up close and personal (although my husband has, obviously). The one they have is a PET/CT 16 (slice), but they are looking at purchasing upwards of a 64 slice in the near future.

In your opinion, how well *does* the PET catch cancer? Particulary for fibrous, large breasts .... :(


~Kimberly Anne~
Noah Nevan, March 12, 2004
*the light of my life*

[bcafe]

Here is a link (not my hospital) that has great images of the PET/CT.
The first pic is the CT, the second is the PET and the third they are "fused" The CT is actually non-diagnostic meaning it is different than having a "regular" CT scan alone as it won't diagnose. With the PET scan it is used for anatomical markings (ribs, pelvis, spine etc). That bright spot in the arm pit is probably 99.9% cancerous since it is taking up the radioactive glucose injection. Anyway, long story short, yep it is great for women with large dense breasts as the radioactive glucose distinguishes between metabolic active tissue and benign tissue. HTH! ( oh btw, certain organs take up more glucose than others, look at the heart for example,and the bladder shows up very "hot" because of excretion) Very cool.....
http://www.sibley.org/services/s_petct.tmpl

[brittone2]

Thanks for that info. I so wish I could get my dad to pay the $$ and do the spiral CT. I was seeing some docs at UPenn a few years ago and I saw they were doing a study on it. I tried to convince him to participate but he wouldn't :(

[Toba]

Thank you so much for the info. Seriously (sorry, I am a Grey's Anatomy freak). That's very encouraging to know it's a good tool for large, fibrous breasts like mine. I should have taken care of this long ago (especially with my family history), but it's just one of those things that just keeps slipping out of memory. I did check out that site, and the pictures are unbelieveable. My husband has been encouraging me to get this done, and I think you've pretty much convinced me to schedule it. Thanks again. :)


~Kimberly Anne~
Noah Nevan, March 12, 2004
*the light of my life*

[mommy_someday]

> However I did see an article
>in my local paper a few months back about how there are
>increasing injuries related to MRI (randome items that get
>near the magnet that shouldn't).
>

This happened to my BIL just a few months ago. Someone had left a large paper clip on the part where the patient lies down. While BIL was having the scan done, the paper clip went whizzing through the machine. Luckily, he wasn't hurt, but who knows how bad it could've been? Scary stuff...

[dr mom]

I haven't had any scary experiences up close, but I when I was a med student I was helping the radiology tech position a patient in the room. Apparently the patient hadn't paid close attention when they questioned her about metal objects, and when she walked in the room all her bobby pins (and handfulls of hair, ouch!) were yanked toward the magnetic field.

In response to the OP, no, I wouldn't. One of the things I try to keep in mind as a healthcare provider is to never order a test if I don't know what I'm looking for, and what I'm going to do with the answers. If you go "fishing" for abnormalities, you're sure to find them even in healthy asymptomatic patients - and then you're in a bit of a bind, do you ignore the abnormal test results or proceed with more invasive, expensive, and potentially dangerous testing?

My med school roommate participated in a research study that involved having a brain MRI done, and an abnormal mass was found. He was totally healthy otherwise, but went through weeks of stress and consultations with neurologists and neurosurgeons before it was finally determined that the mass was "most likely" benign. Years later, he's still perfectly healthy, and he's now a neonatology fellow in the same department as tarahsolazy. Small world. :)