What Do People Think of Health Screening Tests for No Reason (No Symptoms)

[Deactivated] on 18/10/2016 - 04:26

A friend recently had a screening "whole-body" MRI for no reason, other than curiosity. He had no symptoms. But he was over 50 years of age so I guess that may be a reason in itself.

Which got me thinking. A while back "whole-body" CAT scans were all the rage. For $1000 you could get your whole body scanned to identify potential health problems, and hit them on the head early (tumours, anneurisms, liver cirrhosis, etc). I was tempted, that is until I read that your risk of getting cancer just from the scan itself increased by 50 times!!!

So in comes MRI. They say it has no radiation risks, although I'm not sure how giant magnets will affect the body either.

Anyway my friend says his results are "normal" that is any wear and tear on the body is consistent with his age. Other than a few minor things like some benign cysts on his liver, which the doctor says were probably congenital.

So would you have such a test? If you have a genuine reason, like symptoms (obviously), or a family history of some disease, of course anyone would.

But if you're fit and healthy, have no symptoms, would you put yourself through the stress of waiting for that result, in case they find some "incidentals", as they call abnormal results they find by chance.

Presonally I'm still thinking about it.

P.S. He had it done at Melbourne Radiology for about $1000, same cost as a whole-body CAT scan.

Health & Beauty

Comments

  • CrazyMexican on 18/10/2016 - 04:34
    +1

    Unfortunately, some diseases like cancer start emerging in your body without symptoms… its like a kind of prevention (to some extent reasonable as your friend is over 50 years).

  • DarkOz on 18/10/2016 - 07:01

    For older people(35+?) a full body check once a year is highly recommended. A full body MRI check once a year is over the top. It really depends on the individuals as some might want to feel safe so they could sleep easy at night.

    • mskeggs on 18/10/2016 - 07:33
      +4

      highly recommended

      By the people providing scanning services I presume?

      There is evidence that pointless testing produces anxiety and unneeded treatment:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2430161/NHS-screen…

      Other legitimate concerns may be better left undiagnosed. For example, my 76yro father has a benign prostate cancer. If he lives to be 95 the cancer might eventually be the cause of his death, but he is statistically much more likely to die of something else first. Should we spend our time treating him with the attendant waste of resources and risks from complications? He made what I consider a wise choice and said of course not. He is untroubled by it, but having this diagnosis has not benefitted him.

      • mskeggs on 18/10/2016 - 07:35

        Sorry, I mis-read your comment. When you say an annual body check you mean an annual visit to your GP if you haven't visited for other reasons, not a scan, right?

        • DarkOz on 18/10/2016 - 08:19

          No worries mskeggs, that's right. Highly recommend on a general full body check with GP. MRI scan is over the top.

      • Unknown1 on 20/10/2016 - 22:10

        "There is evidence that pointless testing produces anxiety and unneeded treatment:"

        Reminds me of this:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9hEa8LKG4c

  • OZB Al on 18/10/2016 - 08:06

    Check out this UK TV episode if you can find it:
    Horizon - 2015x07 - Are Health Tests Really A Good Idea?
    Spoiler, most are a waste of money and will cause you more problems than they solve.

  • c64 on 18/10/2016 - 08:09
    +1

    So would you have such a test?

    no, unless there is any strong evidence that the tests will do any good for you. esp with no symptoms. read about over-diagnosis.

  • BensonP on 18/10/2016 - 08:26

    You don't want to go down the road of unneeded diagnotic imaging, I mean where do you draw the line? Do you go and have a preventative PET scan and bone marrow biopsy because you might have blood cancer?

    I would definitely be going to you GP and having yourself a physical and blood pressure checked. I'd also get your skin checked for skin cancers.

    Source: Had cancer. Get FREE scans 4 times a year!

  • ChrisLevo on 18/10/2016 - 08:40
    +5

    Action Point 1: Ask your GP.
    Action Point 2: Do what your GP recommends.

  • k-rokfm on 18/10/2016 - 08:42
    +1

    As others above have said, a full body scan would be over the top. An annual visit to the GP would probably do just as much and so much cheaper/free. My step dad recently did his annual visit and the blood tests came back a little abnormal, but nothing that was at a dangerous level. They looked a bit further into it and turned out he had prostate cancer. Just doing a GP visit is enough imo

  • fruit on 18/10/2016 - 09:47

    bayesian statistics

  • blackfrancis75 on 18/10/2016 - 09:48
    +1

    I personally think it's a good idea; and I'm interested in doing it now I know it's so commonly available.

    Why?
    We keep hearing the mantra "the key to treating Cancer is early detection"
    The chances of successful treatment decrease exponentially the more it advances

    Why Not?
    The main reasons people seem to be giving against it are as follows:
    1) it's probably an unnecessary expense
    2) your GP can check you out
    3) you might find something 'abnormal' that's better left untreated

    And my rebuttal to those points would be:
    1) yes the cost is quite high; yes the risk is low; but the consequences (death by cancer) are dire!! conclusion: it's worth it
    2) the tests a GP can do (e.g. blood pressure) might detect a non-specific anomaly - but far later and less reliably than an MRI
    3) how about you see if there is anything first and then decide if it's better left untreated? I'd rather know where I stand

    Again, just my opinion

    • c64 on 18/10/2016 - 14:20

      We keep hearing the mantra "the key to treating Cancer is early detection"

      no, prevention is the key. many instances of cancer are the culmination of a life-time of dna damage that might have been prevented by simple dietary and lifestyle interventions.

      • blackfrancis75 on 18/10/2016 - 19:53

        By far the biggest cause is a genetic predisposition, in which case it cannot be avoided, only identified and treated - and the sooner the better.

        • c64 on 19/10/2016 - 15:01

          this paper suggests otherwise: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515569/

          Only 5–10% of all cancer cases can be attributed to genetic defects, whereas the remaining 90–95% have their roots in the environment and lifestyle. The lifestyle factors include cigarette smoking, diet (fried foods, red meat), alcohol, sun exposure, environmental pollutants, infections, stress, obesity, and physical inactivity. The evidence indicates that of all cancer-related deaths, almost 25–30% are due to tobacco, as many as 30–35% are linked to diet, about 15–20% are due to infections, and the remaining percentage are due to other factors like radiation, stress, physical activity, environmental pollutants etc

          everything is risk based, some smokers manage to live to the ripe old age of 100. but you can certainly reduce your risk even if you are pre-disposed to cancer.

          and diet & lifestyle also overlaps with other major killers such as cardiovascular disease & dementia. win-win!

  • Banana on 18/10/2016 - 09:52

    My grandpa discovered that he had terminal lung cancer during one of regular check ups for his benign tumor in his bladder.

  • Mythreesons on 18/10/2016 - 10:02

    I think it's a great idea. My dad found out in February that he had cancer, he passed away in May he was 34.

    • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2016 - 12:34

      OMG I'm so sorry. Some cancers (hard tumours) can be caught very early with CAT/MRI scans but others not as much. Depending on what he had it may have saved his life.

  • issywhit on 18/10/2016 - 10:06

    If you are in impeccable health then maybe a full body MRI scan might have the chance of detecting a cancer early. But you should definitely be over 50yrs of age because statistically the chance of getting cancer before 50 is rare.

    If you are overweight (not just obese, I'm talking BMI >25), drink alcohol more than the Australian guidelines recommend, smoke cigarettes (including ecigs), take any sort of illicit drugs and don't exercise 30 mins a day 5 days a week - you would be way better served using your $1000 to sort these things out before you get a full body MRI.
    All of the above are risk factors for cancer, heart attacks, strokes and diabetes - all of which can have extreme and debilitating effects on your life.
    I also think that if you spend $1000 visiting your GP annually (so many years of visits) that will probably be more likely to have a benefit through prostate cancer screening, bowel cancer screening, skin checks and mammograms. They will also make sure you are fit, healthy and mentally well and can help you improve these things if they are lacking.

    Just some food for thought.
    Issy

  • [Deactivated] on 18/10/2016 - 12:41

    Just a follow up, my friend showed me his results report. It was basically 3 sentences. I think he is very very lucky not to have something more serious, with all the pollution, food additives, etc, not to mention smoking/alcohol we consume everyday. But leave that discussion for another time.

    When you go to a specialist after GP suspects something serious, one of the first things they ask is family history, and how old your parents were when they died (if from a disease). So take that as a sign of the most important indicators whether to take the test. I read that to mean if you have a family history of serious illness I would be taking this test every year. But that's just my opinion.

  • bargainslut on 18/10/2016 - 15:48

    I think it's up to the individual to decide.

  • [Deactivated] on 19/10/2016 - 01:07
    +2

    For people presdisposed to certain conditions, periodic examination is advised.

    A full body exam with an MRI is like diving into a septic tank with nothing but gloves.. Why MRI only? Why not ultrasound? Also without radiation.

    The truth is, imaging is used only in conjunction with clinical guidance. We are directed to a specific area on an image based in what we can see in person.

    To go through a full body image and list out problems would either result in pages upon pages of irrelevant findings or an incomplete report. Both utterly useless.

    • blackfrancis75 on 19/10/2016 - 09:43

      +1 informative from someone who sounds like they know what they're talking about

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join