The Anxieties of Full-Body MRI Scans (Not Covered by Insurance) (yahoo.com) 75
Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank calls himself "a highly creative hypochondriac" — who just paid for an expensive MRI scan to locate abnormal spots as tiny as 2 millimeters.
He discusses the pros and cons of its "diffusion-weighted imaging" technology combined with the pattern recognition of AI, which theoretically "has the potential to save our lives by revealing budding cancers, silent aneurysms and other hidden would-be killers before they become deadly. " But the scans cost $2,500 a pop and insurance won't pay. Worse, for every cancer these MRIs find, they produce a slightly greater number of false positives that require a biopsy, with the potential for infection and bleeding and emotional distress. Even when the scans don't produce a false positive, they almost always come up with some vague and disconcerting abnormality.... Will we feel better after viewing our insides? Or will we become anxious about things we hadn't even thought to worry about?
Part of living has always been in the mystery, in not knowing what tomorrow will bring. Now, because of sophisticated imaging, genome sequencing and other revolutionary screening tools, we can have predictability, or at least the illusion of it. But do we want that? The American College of Radiology says we do not. Its still-current 2023 statement says there is not "sufficient evidence" to recommend full-body screening, cautioning that the scan could lead to needless testing and expense. But David Larson, chair of ACR's Commission on Quality and Safety, told me that could change as more data comes in. "When people ask me, 'Would you recommend it?' I would say it depends on your tolerance for ambiguity," he said, giving the example of somebody found to have a borderline aortic aneurysm who is advised to wait and monitor it. If "that won't keep you up at night, then I wouldn't necessarily recommend against it...."
About 1 in 20 gets that dreaded call. A study Prenuvo presented earlier this year of 1,011 participants found that 4.9 percent of scans required a follow-up biopsy. Of those, 2.2 percent were actually cancer, and the other 2.7 percent were false positives. Of the 22 cancers the scans caught, 86 percent of patients had no specific symptoms. But if finding something truly awful is rare, finding something abnormal is almost guaranteed. [Vikash Modi, Prenuvo's senior medical director of preventative medicine] said only 1 in 20 scans come back completely clean. The vast majority of patients wind up in the ambiguous realm where something may look suspicious but doesn't require urgent follow-up.
He opted for the cheaper $1,000 torso scan, which the senior medical director calls "our bread-and-butter area," since 17 of the 22 cancers detected in one Prenuvo study were in that area and is where they often find cancers that wouldn't be discovered until they were incurable like "that scary pancreatic stuff...."
Milbank's scan found 12 "abnormalities" included "a 2.5 mm pulmonary nodule in the right lower lobe" and "a 4.6 mm intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in the pancreatic tail" — but with 10 abnormalities labeled "minor" (and six being musculoskeletal wear-and-tear problems "I already knew about from the usual aches and pains".) Even the two "moderate" findings didn't sound that grim when I read on. The "indeterminant lesion" in my lung requires no follow-up, while the thing in my pancreas is "low-risk."... The "most interesting" finding was the pancreatic cyst, because, at this size and location, there's a 3 percent chance it will become cancerous in the next five years. But if annual follow-up scans of my pancreas (covered by insurance) show it's getting bigger, the cyst can be removed before it becomes cancer. For me, this made the MRI worthwhile. Sure, there was a 97 percent likelihood the cyst never would develop into a problem even if I hadn't learned about it. But now, with minimal inconvenience, I can eliminate that 3 percent risk of getting pancreatic cancer, the most lethal of major malignancies.
He discusses the pros and cons of its "diffusion-weighted imaging" technology combined with the pattern recognition of AI, which theoretically "has the potential to save our lives by revealing budding cancers, silent aneurysms and other hidden would-be killers before they become deadly. " But the scans cost $2,500 a pop and insurance won't pay. Worse, for every cancer these MRIs find, they produce a slightly greater number of false positives that require a biopsy, with the potential for infection and bleeding and emotional distress. Even when the scans don't produce a false positive, they almost always come up with some vague and disconcerting abnormality.... Will we feel better after viewing our insides? Or will we become anxious about things we hadn't even thought to worry about?
Part of living has always been in the mystery, in not knowing what tomorrow will bring. Now, because of sophisticated imaging, genome sequencing and other revolutionary screening tools, we can have predictability, or at least the illusion of it. But do we want that? The American College of Radiology says we do not. Its still-current 2023 statement says there is not "sufficient evidence" to recommend full-body screening, cautioning that the scan could lead to needless testing and expense. But David Larson, chair of ACR's Commission on Quality and Safety, told me that could change as more data comes in. "When people ask me, 'Would you recommend it?' I would say it depends on your tolerance for ambiguity," he said, giving the example of somebody found to have a borderline aortic aneurysm who is advised to wait and monitor it. If "that won't keep you up at night, then I wouldn't necessarily recommend against it...."
About 1 in 20 gets that dreaded call. A study Prenuvo presented earlier this year of 1,011 participants found that 4.9 percent of scans required a follow-up biopsy. Of those, 2.2 percent were actually cancer, and the other 2.7 percent were false positives. Of the 22 cancers the scans caught, 86 percent of patients had no specific symptoms. But if finding something truly awful is rare, finding something abnormal is almost guaranteed. [Vikash Modi, Prenuvo's senior medical director of preventative medicine] said only 1 in 20 scans come back completely clean. The vast majority of patients wind up in the ambiguous realm where something may look suspicious but doesn't require urgent follow-up.
He opted for the cheaper $1,000 torso scan, which the senior medical director calls "our bread-and-butter area," since 17 of the 22 cancers detected in one Prenuvo study were in that area and is where they often find cancers that wouldn't be discovered until they were incurable like "that scary pancreatic stuff...."
Milbank's scan found 12 "abnormalities" included "a 2.5 mm pulmonary nodule in the right lower lobe" and "a 4.6 mm intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in the pancreatic tail" — but with 10 abnormalities labeled "minor" (and six being musculoskeletal wear-and-tear problems "I already knew about from the usual aches and pains".) Even the two "moderate" findings didn't sound that grim when I read on. The "indeterminant lesion" in my lung requires no follow-up, while the thing in my pancreas is "low-risk."... The "most interesting" finding was the pancreatic cyst, because, at this size and location, there's a 3 percent chance it will become cancerous in the next five years. But if annual follow-up scans of my pancreas (covered by insurance) show it's getting bigger, the cyst can be removed before it becomes cancer. For me, this made the MRI worthwhile. Sure, there was a 97 percent likelihood the cyst never would develop into a problem even if I hadn't learned about it. But now, with minimal inconvenience, I can eliminate that 3 percent risk of getting pancreatic cancer, the most lethal of major malignancies.
Some get scans for free (Score:5, Insightful)
Because when you're given infusions of Leqembit to slow the progression of Alzheimer's, MRI scans are mandatoy. The drug can cause swelling, bleeding, or fluid leakage in the brain. Generally, scans are given six months apart.
Also, the drug can cause tiredness which is evidenced by the inability to stay awake during the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the only thing more annoying...
Some ass faced pussy hiding behind AC, too chicken shit scared to own it.
Re: (Score:2)
The drug's commercial name is Leqembi, and it's drug name is Lecanemab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecanemab).
And la Presidenta is probably on it. The problem with his right hand is likely caused by the intravenous application. And the newly installed signs around the WH are what you do for Alzheimer's patients so they do not get themselves lost. His rage posts at all hours of the night indicates someone who is up all night, another symptom of that drug. The people in his "Dear Leader" cabinet meetings t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the trumpistan elites are so afraid of dying that what they do gets beyond absurd and is on par with that scary conversation of one crazy vladimir putin with his Chinese counterpart about living up to 150 if human body parts are readily available for replacement.
At the same time, these very elites are happy to leave the populace without vaccination and viable insurance options and to kill research for the dumbest ideological reasons that expose their ignorance and don't bear out even a simple consistency check.
Go figure.
Obligatory quote against the censor trolls. However I have two substantive responses to your topics.
First, I think the extreme megalomanics with sufficient resources are already cloning themselves. Still a secret, but I think the basic plan involves a series of clones a few years apart, all of them carefully indoctrinated to believe whatever the cloner believes. The "upgrade" plan will involve only one major jump, presumably explained as a "relative" who just looks remarkably similar to the megalomaniac at
Re: (Score:2)
Your second point is, of course, spot on and basically similar to what I'm saying, so no argument there.
As to the first, I don't know. The only clones that we've definitely seen are those of putin, if you believe the russian blogsphere, and they are more body doubles than clones, as they're all aging along with the short devil. So my take is, perhaps cloning is on the way, but it isn't yet at the point where you can clone or move the self along, so the billionaires are afraid to swap.
Otherwise we would not
Re: (Score:2)
I have to disagree regarding the human cloning. However I think it is being hidden quite carefully because it is illegal.
Having said that, I think the most interesting clone candidate would actually be John Henry. I'm sure there are some gene samples available since he didn't die until 2007.
Before and After (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always wondered if there might be a benefit to a full body scan along these lines not for its own sake, but for what it could tell me later in life when something actually is wrong. Does having a "before" image help to weed out things that were always there when trying to figure out what's newly wrong, or does it make it more likely miss something that started off small and wasn't impacting my health but now is?
Not that I'm actually planning to get one of these due in large part to the cost, but the engineer in me wonders if there's value to having a "before" picture to compare to the "after" picture later in life.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course there is. Would be cool if they could make an in-home or in-gym/office MRI so that you can scan yourself every few months looking for deltas. If anything looks sus, do a PET-CT. The biggest challenge in making an MRI machine is that you need superconducting magnets, which requires liquid Helium and liquid helium means difficult plumbing and massive bulk. Someone needs to figure out how to build one with liquid nitrogen/"high" temperature superconductors. Or somehow with regular magnets/electromagn
Re: (Score:2)
Would be cool if they could make an in-home or in-gym/office MRI so that you can scan yourself every few months looking for deltas
That would never fly. You just know that some dufus at the gym would bring a 10kg steel dumbbell into the MRI room and ruin things for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah true .. in-office or community center or pharmacy then. Seems like a good benefit (assuming such a low maintenance MRI could ever be made) .. It would need robust safety features to prevent injury of people who forget to take out metal/or forgot they have implants.
Re: (Score:2)
You just know that some dufus at the gym would bring a 10kg steel dumbbell into the MRI room and ruin things for everyone.
No.. this would have to be a locked restricted room where only MRI techs and their clients may access.
However; the equipment is A. Very expensive. Your Gymn is not likely to buy it.
B. Due to the expense.. It is likely that your nearest local Hospitals will guarantee you are not able to obtain the necessary permits in order to protect their monopoly. They've got a huge investment t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From 2018 to 2022, nearly half of all lung cancers were diagnosed at a distant stage, meaning the cancer had spread from the lungs to distant parts of the body. https://www.cdc.gov/united-sta... [cdc.gov]
Nearly all pancreatic cancer is diagnosed late.
Cancer is 95% curable in stage I, and 95% incurable in stage IV.
I'm in biotech, a big problem the field tries to solve is late-diagnosis .. investors are throwing lots of money at liquid biopsy and early diagnosis --- for good reason. But forget my bias on that. How old
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have no statistics, I came at you with a link to statistics -- 50% of lung cancer (by far the biggest cancer killer) is diagnosed late .. I provided you a link for that, plus actual evidence I've seen says cancer is frequently diagnosed too late. You keep saying there's tons of evidence that diagnostic testing early is useless, but you haven't shown me a single link. ..your favorite! https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
How many links do you need?
JAMA
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
https://jamanetwork.com/ [jamanetwork.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>> Does having a "before" image
It sure does seem like having a physical snapshot of your innards to compare against a future version every few years could be a great preventative.
Re: (Score:3)
Computerized tomatography and nuclear magnetic resonance imaging only appeared circa 1970, but there are still at least some doctors around who try to divine things by looking at a printed film. Budding radiol [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I ALWAYS get the data. If you or your insurance are paying for an MRI, X-Ray, or other scan, it is your RIGHT by law to get a copy of your own medical records. They can charge you a small fee to cover the costs of, for example, burning a CD, but I've actually never been charged for it.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be insane to not get a copy of any imaging. You can't rely on some health system storing your stuff for more than X years and it will get silently deleted. And if you need an old image for a baseline comparison, you will be out of luck. Plus, if you wait until later, you might forget to get it, or not remember where you had it taken, or the company might have gone belly-up or sold and systems changed.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with any large scan is that you need a team of qualified doctors to evaluate what it means.
First you need someone trained in medical imaging to identify what they are seeing and classify it, then experts in the various areas to tell you if that's really a problem and so on.
This is the real bottleneck, and not the availability of the machines, these are already mass-produced and their price is not high on account of their design and manufacturing costs.
Of course, very soon you'll have the "AI" sc
Re: (Score:2)
>"I've always wondered if there might be a benefit to a full body scan along these lines not for its own sake, but for what it could tell me later in life when something actually is wrong. Does having a "before" image help to weed out things"
I came to point out this exact case. There is probably a good reason to have a body scan sometime in mid-life as a "baseline" so you have something to compare back to. I believe this will probably become routine at some point. Maybe at age 45 or something. But fo
Re: (Score:2)
Does having a "before" image help to weed out things that were always there when trying to figure out what's newly wrong
The point being newly wrong doesn't mean medically relevant. Except you won't know that until you cut it out of your body. How many times do you go under the knife looking for things that are not related to symptoms? The pain and risk of going after ghosts in your MRI are often worse than the symptoms of you experience of actual problems that would prompt you to go look for something.
Live your life, listen to your body. When something is wrong with you, go get yourself checked out (don't be a man and say yo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To update that old saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
"A hypochondriac and his money are soon parted."
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
In this case the guy's probably getting paid to hype up MRI scanning. He's on the team that's getting rich, not the other way around.
"highly creative hypochondriac" (Score:3)
It's preventive, not diagnostic, so it's properly up to the insurance whether to cover it or not - that's a risk/benefit decision they have.
But I would say that insurance should pay if the scan turns up anything requiring medical attention - early detection saves money.
Re: (Score:2)
>"But I would say that insurance should pay if the scan turns up anything requiring medical attention - early detection saves money."
I would say it is very unlikely any insurance will retroactively pay for a non-medically-indicated (non-physician-ordered and with justification) scan. Even if it picks up something that is a valid concern. However, they should cover further investigation/treatment of something discovered. Including further scans to clarify and follow-up scans.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm seeing a lot of MRI related content (Score:3, Insightful)
A member of Congress just pointed out that the spots on Trump's hands are probably from an IV used to administer in Alzheimer's drug and that the MRIs are likely because the drug has a side effect that can cause brain swelling and they are monitoring for that.
What's weird is while this is going on suddenly I get all these stories in my feed and on pages I frequent about mris. The algorithm knows that MRIS or being searched for by people because even though the regular news media isn't allowed to talk about Trump's medical condition people have Google and are using it.
I suspect what's happening is that most newsrooms will monitor frequently searched keywords and start running stories about them to soak up ad revenue. People are searching for MRI because Trump is in the news and The newsroom is ordering stories about it.
It's kind of bizarrely cool and a cyberpunk kind of way.
Re: I'm seeing a lot of MRI related content (Score:2)
This feels like what's known as a house of cards. Are the spots on Trump's hand from an IV? Almost certainly. Did it contain an Alzheimers drug? That's very speculative.
An old person falling asleep can be caused by many things. Congestive heart failure is one. That condition is also associated with cankles. Trump said the MRI was of his torso, heart area, not brain area. This is another house of cards, but it looks a bit stronger to me.
Re: (Score:2)
And then we have the MRIs. You don't just do MRIs. There is no such thing as a preventative MRI that doesn't involve a known issue.
Alzheimer's is the only thing that fits the data we have. Yeah it is possible it's something else but if we just talking about probability and likelihood especially given Trump's behavior where he keeps falling asleep during cabinet meetings, a side e
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as a preventative MRI that doesn't involve a known issue.
Well, there is. TFA is literally about that. It is not part of standard medical practice and everything else you said seems to check out, but that statement was not quite correct.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's hands are probably from an IV used to administer in Alzheimer's drug
This is a classic case of mixing with the plausible with the unknowable. IV to administer drugs causing bruising? Yeah absolutely. But to jump to Alzheimer's drugs specifically rather than the many 1000s of drugs that could be administered this way is an attempt to push an unverified and usually politically biased narrative.
It could just as well be cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes there are other possibilities but this is the one that fits the data. You might not like it because well, you love Trump and you're hoping he gets a third term, and you probably not going to admit that because nobody who likes Trump admits it outside of safe spaces, but this is where the data points to
Re: (Score:2)
No this is taking the data that we have and fitting it to the most likely outcome.
I would argue that the data we have is corrupted. How do you gauge the mental acuity of someone who presented with none in the first place. That was partially my joke and partially my point. Mapping Bush's decline was easy, he used to be incredibly articulate before he became the first president that made dumb speeches. Mapping Biden's decline was also easy, he was still articulate but progressively slowed over the years.
But what data do we have on Trump? The guy for the past 30 years spoke like he couldn't
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ man, does anything in your day not somehow involve thinking about Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help it if you're not paying attention or that you don't understand how our government is breaking down.
Re: (Score:2)
Your head may need an MRI. I'm serious. They need to check if all the lobes, specifically the frontal lobes, are present.
More testing Better Medicine (Score:4, Insightful)
The medical industry already profits greatly from medical testing. Testing earns the industry lots of money; then, patients with positive results receive follow-up treatments, which nets the industry even more money.
Everyone screens for cancer now. Breast cancer. Colorectal cancer. Prostate cancer. The list goes on. (I'm even a cancer survivor myself.) And yet, to this day, studies question whether more testing results in longer life spans [lowninstitute.org]. Generally, it does not. Meanwhile, all the testing and treatments and post-surgery therapies reduces one's quality of life, especially the older one gets.
The cited article says it best: "How could it be that many cancer screenings don’t have an impact on overall lifespan? While screenings prevent some deaths from cancer, they don’t prevent all...At the same time, cancer screenings have associated harms such as false positive results, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment (not to mention the financial cost of all these cascade events). It could be that the benefits of screening that some people receive get washed out by the harms that others experience when looking at screening on a population level."
We are already pricing ourselves out of paradise when it comes to medical care, and full-body MRIs are only going to make it worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can state unequivocally that cancer screening has added at least 20 years to my life. In 2005 I had a routine colonoscopy that revealed a stage 3 adenocarcinoma tumor in the ascending colon. My oncologist estimated I had maybe a year without prompt treatment, depending on when the tumor caused the colon be blocked or burst. For most people the tumor has usually metastasized by that point.
But thanks to a prompt hemicolectomy, six months of chemo and some luck I'm still here and able to live a normal life.
Helium shortage? (Score:2)
I've read MRI scans require helium, and there is currently a shortage. It's not practically renewable or recyclable so far. If everyone gets an MRI it could cause a severe shortage.
I wonder if the tech can be reworked to not require helium or any other hard-to-find resource.
Re: (Score:2)
Party balloons are a big waste of Helium.
Re: Helium shortage? (Score:2)
Why isn't helium very expensive?
Re: Helium shortage? (Score:1)
My tale (Score:3)
As you might tell from my ID, I'm old. My wife and I both paid for torso scans from Prenuvo a year ago. Mine was essentially clear with nothing that requires immediate action. My wife had a 6.5 mm pulmonary nodule - a 6 mm or greater nodule is a possible cancer. Our doctor recommended having an another MRI (paid by insurance) a year later.
So my wife had the second MRI a month ago and the nodule has grown to 9 mm. A follow-up PET scan showed a "hot" image. Surgical removal is in two weeks.
My wife has no symptoms. We would never have known about this problem but for that first scan. It may save her life, or the nodule might be benign and all the anxiety, the follow-up tests and the pain of the surgery might be for nothing. We will know soon.
Re: (Score:2)
It may save her life, or the nodule might be benign and all the anxiety, the follow-up tests and the pain of the surgery might be for nothing. We will know soon.
Hopefully it's all for nothing (in a good way).
Re: My tale (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, a 5 mm spot of cancer can make you feel incredibly sick, to the point where you can barely stand or walk, so my guess is it's benign
Depends very much on where it is and the type of cancer.
Go to sea with 1 clock or 3, never just 2 (Score:1)
Similarly, don't pay for a single full body scan to clutch your pearls over.
Pay for several, taken several years apart. Then at least you can tell if the weird spot is still there, has always been there, or winked out of existence.
TLDR: learn how detection theory can work for you!
Re: Go to sea with 1 clock or 3, never just 2 (Score:1)
An anecdote (Score:2)
Once upon a time I was working for a university, a different one to the one I work for now... we had a conversation with some health spa consultants who were talking about this plan they had for a high end holiday clinic for wealthy folks on a nearby island.
They described at length the technology they were planning on using... a kind of corridor that they said a patient could walk down and while they were doing that a series of sensors would scan them, and then do automated analysis to determine a bunch of
No lives were saved (Score:2)
Come to terms with that fact, it will help you relax and have peace with yourself.
Hong Kong has the highest average life expectancy of 85, the USA is 55th at 79 years.
Ironically, being afraid of dying will give you enough stress that you will die earlier.
Full body is not actually full body (Score:2)
A full body scan, contrary to a popular belief, are not actually full body scans. Depending on the provider, they may scan you head to thigh, or they may just scan a number of areas (like brain+lungs+liver+pancreas+abdomen) in a bundle and call it a full body scans.
Most importantly, full body scans are not detailed scans. That's because the protocols for a full body scans include capturing just an overview of a particular organ without doing what they call zooming in". For example, they may scan your hip bu
Re: Full body is not actually full body (Score:2)
highly creative hypochondriac, insurance didn't.. (Score:2)
Separating rubes from their $$$... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am a physician. In particular, I am a cardiologist.
Not a (work-)day goes by that I don't get a new consult for someone who got a CT scan of the chest for screening for lung cancer (because they have a smoking history) that shows calcification of the arteries of the heart. Or maybe it's a self-pay coronary calcium score. Or maybe it's an elevated Lipoprotein (a).
These tests lead to unnecessary consultations and increased anxiety. Not with me, but a lot of other physicians will then order stress tests compounding the unneeded testing.
I spend (waste?) my time explaining to them that the best thing they can do is regular exercise and diet and be on the watch for exertional symptoms. Sometimes it clicks with the patients. Other times they come with the mindset that they need a stress test or need a heart catheterization and will give me a poor review or even try to report my to the hospital network I work for.
A total waste of resources.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your frustration. However, having been through the medical wringer a bit myself, I don't really appreciate the general contempt for patients.
Thank goodness insurance won't pay (Score:2)
the scans cost $2,500 a pop and insurance won't pay. Worse...
This quote implies that it's a bad thing that insurance won't pay. This is a feature, not a bug. If insurance did pay for these nutcases wanting to endlessly test themselves in a desperate quest to find something, ANYTHING wrong, it would increase costs for all of us. As it is, it only increases costs for...hypochondriacs.
Our bodies are very good at telling us when things aren't right. Not perfect, but very good. My philosophy is that you go to the doctor when something is wrong.
As the summary pointed out,
If you are paying out of pocket (Score:2)
While some cancers have benefitted greatly from si (Score:2)
such as breast, skin, testicular, prostate, many others, like liver, kidney, brain, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, remain undetected until organ failure or metastasis to brain, bone, spine etc. Even prostate can be a toss-up until ruled in/out by MRI. This scanning approach, and ones like CancerGuard are on the long tail of cost, still expensive and unapproved by insurance. There needs to be some middle ground, driven by research, cost efficiency or both. Insurers may see such cases as a tiny percentage of
normally you try to bring operating costs down (Score:1)
The excuse for the price of MRIs is the electricity they use up. It's a pretty shitty reason, something could have been done about it by now if that were the real problem. The real reason is just that administrators are loathe to turn off the cash cow, since they'd get fired immediately by the board of directors who hate when numbers go down. Everyone who thinks prices should go down under this system simply doesn't understand how it works - it ratchets ever upward "on its own" as it were. Everyone hate
Why Not Use MRIs for Pancreatic Cancer Screening? (Score:2)
The "most interesting" finding was the pancreatic cyst, because, at this size and location, there's a 3 percent chance it will become cancerous in the next five years. But if annual follow-up scans of my pancreas (covered by insurance) show it's getting bigger, the cyst can be removed before it becomes cancer. For me, this made the MRI worthwhile. Sure, there was a 97 percent likelihood the cyst never would develop into a problem even if I hadn't learned about it. But now, with minimal inconvenience, I can eliminate that 3 percent risk of getting pancreatic cancer, the most lethal of major malignancies.
The normal lifetime incident of pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in men is 1.8%. That cyst is bumping the odds up by about 2/3 (from what the says) is significant but not a huge change.
But he is seriously misinformed about the medicine here. He imagines that checking this cyst periodically will alert him before it becomes cancerous and metastasizes and then removing the cyst will be a "minimal inconvenience" and this program will protect him from the risk of PDAC.
MRI is not currently reliable for detec