Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 290 posts

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#281

Post by jml78 »

codethief wrote: post #179
jml78 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I have experience with both. It found cancer for my wife and she was able to treat it immediately. Fully recovered. It found a weird spot on me that turned out to a pancreatic rest. The only reason we did the scans were because we were making a significant life decision that we didn’t want to have to backtrack if either got diagnosed with cancer within a year . We knew nothing was guaranteed but we wanted to do…

> The only reason we did the scans were because we were making a significant life decision that we didn’t want to have to backtrack if either got diagnosed with cancer within a year . Interesting. If it's not too personal, would you mind elaborating on the kind of life decision you were making? I have never heard of anyone getting checked up for cancer before they make an important life decision. I mean won't a cance…

Not sure if you will see this.

We were buying a sailboat(we actually did it). Wife got diagnosed with cancer. We talked with doctors about treatment, felt confident with catching it so early.

Purchased the sailboat, we live on the sailboat with our two kids, two dogs, and two cats, 6+ months out of the year.

What you can't plan for is shit that happens on land. We came back in June 2025, my wife was stopped at a red light and got rear ended by a dump truck. That has put a pause on our sailing life. But we should be getting back out there soon.

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#282

Post by BobbyTables2 »

mvdwoord wrote: post #211
_alternator_ wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The major reason not to do this is that you often get worse outcomes for patients. Oncology provides a lot of examples where “more knowledge” does not lead to better outcomes. Routine ovarian cancer screening, prostate screens, childhood neuronlastoma screens, and breast cancer screens all have shown that overuse will identify more cancer, but do not lead to better outcomes like reduced mortality. The reasons are com…

I appreciate that, but do wonder, if this is an issue with too much data or how we act on that data. In other words, could there be a future where we do have tons more data, but also use the data in such a way to achieve an overall better outcome for patients?

You’re assuming a future with highly competent specialists who also don’t make medical decisions based on insurance requirements.

Unfortunately too many radiologists and specialists are more focused on upping cash flow than medical care.

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#283

Post by [deleted] »

pedalpete wrote: post #251
rustyhancock wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't agree with linear no threshold models for cancers induced by radiation (I don't think LNT is accurate). It comes down to the scan and the age. 3 scans for a 1 year old? Strongly associated with cancers later in life. 5 scans of a 50 year old? Less so. The 1 year old has an 80 year run way to develop cancer, along with cells already set in a state of rapid division, and a less developed immune system…

I think the bigger point you are making is that the 50 year old is also more likely to have developed cancer. Maybe a full body MRI once a decade is fine until your 30s, then once every 5 years until 50, then once ever 2 years beyond 50. The test should scale with the probability of cancer.

[deleted]

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#284

Post by [deleted] »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #276
azan_ wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please just read this article - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... It's funny that you instantly assumed that authors are stupid and did not think about this obvious pitfall. It's extra funny that you also accuse them of jumping to conclusion without actually reading the article.

I've read it. It's so comically unscientific.

[deleted]

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#285

Post by bondarchuk »

pedalpete wrote: post #251
rustyhancock wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't agree with linear no threshold models for cancers induced by radiation (I don't think LNT is accurate). It comes down to the scan and the age. 3 scans for a 1 year old? Strongly associated with cancers later in life. 5 scans of a 50 year old? Less so. The 1 year old has an 80 year run way to develop cancer, along with cells already set in a state of rapid division, and a less developed immune system…

I think the bigger point you are making is that the 50 year old is also more likely to have developed cancer. Maybe a full body MRI once a decade is fine until your 30s, then once every 5 years until 50, then once ever 2 years beyond 50. The test should scale with the probability of cancer.

They were not talking about MRI, there is a significant difference.

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#286

Post by bondarchuk »

pedalpete wrote: post #251
rustyhancock wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you don't agree with linear no threshold models for cancers induced by radiation (I don't think LNT is accurate). It comes down to the scan and the age. 3 scans for a 1 year old? Strongly associated with cancers later in life. 5 scans of a 50 year old? Less so. The 1 year old has an 80 year run way to develop cancer, along with cells already set in a state of rapid division, and a less developed immune system…

I think the bigger point you are making is that the 50 year old is also more likely to have developed cancer. Maybe a full body MRI once a decade is fine until your 30s, then once every 5 years until 50, then once ever 2 years beyond 50. The test should scale with the probability of cancer.

They were not talking about MRI, there is a significant difference (purported).

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#287

Post by colletta »

jml78 wrote: post #281
codethief wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only reason we did the scans were because we were making a significant life decision that we didn’t want to have to backtrack if either got diagnosed with cancer within a year . Interesting. If it's not too personal, would you mind elaborating on the kind of life decision you were making? I have never heard of anyone getting checked up for cancer before they make an important life decision. I mean won't a cance…

Not sure if you will see this. We were buying a sailboat(we actually did it). Wife got diagnosed with cancer. We talked with doctors about treatment, felt confident with catching it so early. Purchased the sailboat, we live on the sailboat with our two kids, two dogs, and two cats, 6+ months out of the year. What you can't plan for is shit that happens on land. We came back in June 2025, my wife was stopped at a red…

[dead]

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#288

Post by azan_ »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #276
azan_ wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please just read this article - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... It's funny that you instantly assumed that authors are stupid and did not think about this obvious pitfall. It's extra funny that you also accuse them of jumping to conclusion without actually reading the article.

I've read it. It's so comically unscientific.

What's unscientific in that?

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#289

Post by smsm42 »

nayroclade wrote: post #129

Arguments against proactive MRI scanning always seem to have a whiff of status quo bias to them. Yes, right now MRIs are expensive and false positives are common, but if regular scans were widespread, it's likely this result in innovations that would drive down costs, improve accuracy, as well as producing a much larger corpus of data with which to guide diagnosis and reduce false positives. To use a software analogy…

> if your downtime detection system kept producing false negatives, would your solution to be just turn it off

It's more like if your CI build fails in 95% of runs, and in only 2% of runs it indicates a real bug, do you have a bad CI which is next to useless for detecting bugs? I'd say yes, that's exactly what you have. No developer is going to pay any attention to this CI, and if you tell the developers they must ensure tests pass on such CI, they would rebel.

Re: How often do full-body MRIs find cancer?

#290

Post by smsm42 »

This article's numbers are (not) surprisingly useless. So, for 1.8% of people in one study who did MRI they found cancer. Is it a lot? A few? I mean, how many people do these MRIs, out of general population? Are those high-risk people or just random people (or, maybe, only rich people?) and what their base rate incidence of cancer? What is base rate incidence of cancer in general population and how often those cancers are discovered by non-MRI tests?

If I had to decide whether or not MRI is worth it for cancer detection - this is what the article is supposed to be about? - those are the questions I'd ask. None of them are addressed in the article. I think if we dropped everything in it but the last sentence, it would lose nothing of substance:

> No matter what you decide for yourself, consult a licensed medical professional for advice.

Post reply on HN