Thanks for the edit and even the NYT article obscures this.
My point on MRI is that they do not themselves have side effects.
If you have a doctor that immediately sends you for a bunch of CAT scans and/or cuts you open, then obviously there are side effects.
And why would you immediately jump to either? If it's the first ever scan, and you see something unusual it could be monitored by a 6month/1year ultrasound and/or MRI followup.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of the direct cancer detection solutions are there yet either. There's a recent startup that claims something like 5% detection of stage 1 / 10% detection stage 2 / 25% detection stage 3 / etc on a set of cancers, but they also just accidentally mass-mailed a bunch of negative patients that they have cancer.
You also express a false dichotomy - single MRI bad, but monthly MRIs for life good?
A sober reading of annual MRI/Ultrasound type tests without knee-jerk invasive followups when you are 30+ seem like a reasonable risk weighted solution in contrast, doesn't it?
> You also express a false dichotomy - single MRI bad, but monthly MRIs for life good?
yeah, this is badly expressed on my part. I was trying to get across that a single whole body scan without context (ie it hurts here, or it bleeds there or we suspect x) is difficult to interpret. think of it as a day's unstructured logs. Regular scans allows you to build up a picture of whats changing, and whats normal for you.
> A sober reading of annual MRI/Ultrasound type tests without knee-jerk invasive followups when you are 30+ seem like a reasonable risk weighted solution in contrast, doesn't it?
I think routine targeted scanning is something that is worthwhile. The UK does a number of them, and they were normally based on evidence of outcome. Prostate/breast/cervical etc etc. I personally think the future of public health is something akin to getting each personal a vitals dashboard.
But, I'm not sure regular MRIs will give us that. if the evidence changes though, then it should be reassessed.
My point on MRI is that they do not themselves have side effects.
If you have a doctor that immediately sends you for a bunch of CAT scans and/or cuts you open, then obviously there are side effects.
And why would you immediately jump to either? If it's the first ever scan, and you see something unusual it could be monitored by a 6month/1year ultrasound and/or MRI followup.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem like any of the direct cancer detection solutions are there yet either. There's a recent startup that claims something like 5% detection of stage 1 / 10% detection stage 2 / 25% detection stage 3 / etc on a set of cancers, but they also just accidentally mass-mailed a bunch of negative patients that they have cancer.
You also express a false dichotomy - single MRI bad, but monthly MRIs for life good?
A sober reading of annual MRI/Ultrasound type tests without knee-jerk invasive followups when you are 30+ seem like a reasonable risk weighted solution in contrast, doesn't it?