How often do full-body MRIs actually find cancer?

As exciting as full-body MRIs seem, many in medicine are skeptical. But there are useful cases.

USA TODAY

“ One study in 2020 found that 95% of asymptomatic patients had some type of "abnormal" finding, but just 1.8% of these findings were indeed cancer.”

This has been my experience. And I’ve had oncologists echo exactly this. In the words of one: MRIs find too much.

The CT and the PET/CT are the gold standards for finding cancer, finding recurrences, and staging cancer. The trouble is the radiation dose.

MRI provides very inconclusive results. You’ll see something but it’ll be unclear what it is. And often what you see is not even visible on a CT. Or it’s visible on a PET/CT and is showing metabolic activity indicating its cancer.

MRIs are great for certain things like herniated disks in your back. They suck at cancer.

And yes getting frequent full body MRIs is still overwhelming the right thing for the patient.
This guy has never heard the term 'scanxiety'. Go ask what it means on a cancer forum. The real OG's are the VHL folks. Bet we have a few here on this thread. Respect.
I have, it's the fault of how medicine is practiced to reduce cost. It's completely avoidable, you can just not tell people their scan results if they have no symptoms and the detection is less than 95% likely to be cancer. This is strictly better than the status quo because the only difference is some people who almost certainly have cancer learn that they have cancer and nothing else changes
Again, you're assuming the only downside of a routine scan is anxiety. No, the real downside is that you'll trigger needless invasive procedures.
How can you trigger an invasive procedure if nobody learns the result of the scan?
Obviously, the doctor does. Nobody was ever claiming that the problem with full-body scans was that patients were demanding biopsies!

Right, the problem in your model is that the doctors do! I am pointing out that this is a problem with the doctors, not the scan.

Scans are a tool, doctors are not allowed to use them rationally because it would be too expensive, so they don't use them. With an ideal doctor, patient outcomes would be better with a scan than without one, but my claim is that doctors are not ideal.

No doctor would order a full body MRI just to throw out the result in 99% of cases, because *it's too costly*

Doctors are not ordering biopsies to salvage the value of a scan they just ordered.