Data were pooled using a random effects model. The majority of the included studies only reported the total number of critical or indeterminate incidental findings, without mentioning the number of subjects in whom these findings were observed. Prevalence was pooled on the assumption that most included subjects had no more than one critical or indeterminate incidental finding. In three studies, 5 , 11 , 12 reported cardiac abnormalities such as infarction and myocardial dysfunction Table 3 may overlap in one subject.
Therefore, only the cardiac abnormality with the highest prevalence was used for the pooled analysis. Potential sources for heterogeneity were explored by subgroup analyses. Covariates were publication year published in or after vs. The study selection process is displayed in Fig.
- The Practice of Royal Icing.
- The Treasury of Knowledge - Book Five: Buddhist Ethics.
- Full-body MRI Shows Promise For Screening, But Should Stay In Research Area For Now, Study Says?
- Whole-Body MRI Screening?
- Organizing for Change: Integrating Architectural Thinking in Other Fields;
The principal characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 4. Laible et al, Data on study characteristics that might affect risk of bias are displayed in Table 1. The study design was prospective in five studies, retrospective in three studies, and in four studies it was not specified. In half of the included studies, subjects were enrolled consecutively; in the other half, it was not specified whether subjects were enrolled consecutively or randomly.
The median number of subjects per included study was range 10— The total sample size comprised of subjects. Pooled frequency of male subjects was Prevalence was not statistically significantly different in subgroups according to publication year and study size Table 5.
Myth: Whole-body screening is an effective way to detect hidden cancers
There was a large number of critical and indeterminate incidental findings without reported verification Table 3 , Fig. For example, in one study a coccygeal chordoma was probably not detected because no sequence in the sagittal plane was acquired. Our systematic review had several limitations. First, a major limitation of our study is that prevalence data were pooled on the assumption that most included subjects had no more than one critical or indeterminate incidental finding.
Second, there is no inter national consensus list of critical and indeterminate incidental findings. Potentially relevant information such as subject's age and gender, and exact location, size, and signal characteristics of detected lesions were not presented for each subject. This may have resulted in overestimation of prevalence.
Third, as mentioned above, we could not fully explore potential sources of heterogeneity by subgroup analyses. Fourth, as there is no validated quality assessment tool for prevalence studies, study quality was not formally assessed. Fifth, the included studies investigated mainly adult male subjects.
It could be possible that male subjects were more likely to participate because of a generally higher socioeconomic status. Because of incomplete reporting, we could not pool data for male and female subjects separately. Many people attach high value to the incidental MRI findings of disease that "can save lives. The full text of this article hosted at iucr. If you do not receive an email within 10 minutes, your email address may not be registered, and you may need to create a new Wiley Online Library account. If the address matches an existing account you will receive an email with instructions to retrieve your username.
Original Research Open Access. Robert M. Thomas C. Box Tools Request permission Export citation Add to favorites Track citation. Share Give access Share full text access. Share full text access.
- Chemistry and Lithography (Press Monograph).
- Korean Honorifics and Politeness in Second Language Learning.
- Whole body MRI may help to detect spread of cancers more quickly.
- Ezra launches full-body MRI screening.
- Inner Healing: A Handbook for Helping Yourself and Others;
Please review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article. Results Pooled prevalences of critical and indeterminate incidental findings together and separately were Imaging Study Data Extraction Data were extracted by one radiologist with 12 years of experience in data extraction for systematic reviews R. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus with a third radiologist.
Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus with a senior radiologist with 15 years' experience. Laible et al 11 Prospective Consecutive No b b The first 36 subjects were imaged using a standard clinical 1. The following subjects were imaged using a 1.
Whole-body MRI gets cancer detection boost
Two radiologists with more than 6 years' experience in cardiovascular MRI. Independent reading. Consensus reading. Therefore, we did not include these findings in this table. Results Literature Search The study selection process is displayed in Fig. Figure 1 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint. Flowchart of the study selection process. Study Quality Data on study characteristics that might affect risk of bias are displayed in Table 1. Parameter Variables a a Data in parentheses are number of studies. Pooled prevalence of all critical and indeterminate incidental findings P value Publication year Published in or after 6 vs.
Figure 2 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint.
What is preventive medicine? Crossref PubMed Google Scholar. PubMed Google Scholar. Early View Online Version of Record before inclusion in an issue. Figures References Related Information. Close Figure Viewer. Many patients benefit from early cancer detection, which can be accomplished with MR, without the danger of ionizing radiation.
Furthermore, MRI image quality is so advanced that it has the ability to clearly define structures and lesions within the body in far greater detail than other modalities. Using the latest technology in MR, physicians can now create 3D reconstructions of targeted areas in the body, allowing them to determine if a lesion is benign or if it requires further investigation. Many institutions are able to perform the whole body MR scan in about an hour, imaging the patient from their head to their knees.
Doctors do not recommend that everyone undergo whole body preventative screening. In fact, unless there are reasons to suspect a disease is present, most doctors recommend against having it done. This is because in any person it is possible to find meaningless tissue abnormalities that do not indicate a genuine problem. If something unusual is found on a scan, it generally means the person will go forward with additional tests and interventions that can be more invasive and may be unnecessary. However, if you are considered a high-risk patient, most doctors are very supportive of preventative screening.
Preventative breast screening is also often recommended due to the following events:. At this time, when it comes to preventative breast screening, mammography remains the only clinically proven imaging modality to reduce mortality from breast cancer.
Indications for Whole-Body MRI
However, while screening mammography has improved the detection of breast cancer, it has several limitations. Specifically, in screening young women, women with dense breasts, and in women with the BRCA gene where mammography sensitivity can be lower. MRI preventative screening for women has proven very clinically valuable.