Dr. Christy explains her position on Whole-Body Screening MRI's and gives the data behind her decision. REFERENCES: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30932... pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33596... www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
Just curious what percentage of people would have to die from something that could be prevented by early detection, before screening is considered worth it.
Exactly! I’d rather know that I’m perfectly healthy & safe in the end- cus THAT is money well spent, unlike the tens of thousands most ppl spend on multiple visits with numerous diff doctors, & all from being referred to ten different specialists for simple “abnormal bloodwork” but still have no diagnosis to show for it in the end except opinions/assumptions based on how extensive their knowledge base is or isn’t) than to live on completely blind to the possibility & not knowing, just to eventually die as a result of this “not being recommended” in preference for the longer, more expensive & extensive route that’s currently the routine way of doing things, & doesn’t yield productive results in the end anyways!
I bet you would think it was a good idea and worth the $ if you found cancer early and it saved your life. 😊2500.00 is a small price to pay for living.
I had cancer, and it was observed after surgery. I had alternating CTs and x-rays every six weeks. After a year, it was suspected that a lymph node was malignant. I was scheduled for a biopsy. This was 2001, and I had read about PET. I brought it up to my doctor, and they checked with my insurance. The just happened to have a PET in a trailer parked outside the hospital. PET was quite new at the rime. I got the PET, and it showed the lymph node. I then had large doses of therapeutic radiation. Not a sign of it for 22 years now. It was a great relief to know that there weren't other malignant locations..
My mother had a baseline scan of her torso due to stenosis. She had a follow-up about five years later and they saw a "little thing" on her lung. Fast forward and it was malignant. It was about 1cm, and they got it out. Docs said that by the time it would have become symptomatic she'd have been stage 3/4, and at her age that would have been lights out in a year. The fact the docs could say definitively (at least as close as you can get with these things) that the mass was not there previously, meant they were comfortable being aggressive in getting it out. They said it might have saved a lot of stress, and perhaps improved her outcome if the mass had time to spread. I'm no hypochondriac, am in good health, but started blood and general health checkups at about 47 - right after my mother found out. Found some areas that could use a tune-up (hormones) - and adjustments made a radical difference over the next few years. I'm getting a full-body MRI not to find anything today (I hope), but as a baseline to determine if that "little thing" they find in a few years was always there. If so, they can then nuke it from orbit with confidence. It's spendy, but I am fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
Doctors should NOT be basing their opinions on costs to patients. Everything in this video makes reference to cost. It is a fact that MRI full body screenings, without symptoms being present, save lives. When doctors say it is not worth it because the patient will have to spend money on potential further scans, the doctor is presuming that the patient has some sort of care about money. The entire argument becomes flawed, because it is a FACT that screening saves lives. Money is not in the equation. If you take the mention of cost out of this video, you are left with this...1 out of 100 or so scans have FOUND CANCER in people that had no symptoms. Who cares about the percentage or the cost to the patient. If the doctor's personal "opinion" is that he or she would not "personally" spend $2500 on a scan, so be it. Just don't press your financial beliefs on to a patient. The fact is preventative scans save lives. Whether it is 1 out of 10, or 1 out of 1000, it does not matter. Let the patient make the choice.
This is just stupid. So if you had to scan every single person in the United States to find one cancer, should we do it? Let everyone spend time and money, not to mention all the false positive and wild goose chases produced. What you people don’t understand is that there are not that many radiologists. Radiologists are a precious resource and they shouldn’t be pulled away to do elective studies that are not that useful statistically. More radiologists reading these elective scans means less radiologists reading scans on sick people. There’s more to it than just spending money on a 1/100 chance of finding a random cancer.
I saw those comments. I knew that some people were not hearing what you were actually saying. Thanks for this clarification and your thoughtful videos. They are appreciated. ❤
We need this because docs cannot diagnose anymore unless it’s staring them in the face. No one is training good diagnosticians and even if they were, no one spends more than 10 minutes with you in office because they have 10,000 patients on their books. My sister has had a life long chronic problem that NO ONE can diagnose. The only thing left is a full body scan. But then the question is, will someone actually treat a cash patient? We think she has a dysautonomia, but we are guessing of course.
You initially would think so, but the ongoing testing is so burdensome and MOST of what they find is not anything at all - it just causes a lot of stress and ongoing testing. BUT, this is such a personal decision! It is really based on your own ability to tolerate risk. I just want people to know what they are going into before they get it so they can go in informed. Thanks for watching!
Noting that: Of those subscribers (who at the start had no symptoms or history of detectable illness but were willing to undergo the complete MRI) some 50,000 (30%) would be subject to the cost and trouble of up to 4 to 6 subsequent visits for tests over the following year to arrive at those 3,200 significant/worthwhile detections. Also consider most of those hospital visits would involve the logistical time and expense of other family members accompanying the patient. For some it might be worth it.
@ChristyRisingerMD you didn’t state this in your video though, that’s the problem a lot of ppl are having here, it seems. Maybe edit this video to add this in- that you believe it’s such a personal decision, and just want them to be aware of the circumstantial considerations first before diving in, etc.- rather than using your MD status as a way to elevate your own personal beliefs/opinions, & potentially influence viewers’ own decisions- especially the ones that COULD benefit from such a screening- not to have it done in the end, all because “a doctor doesn’t recommend it”. That would be the smart move.
Amongst people paying for an elective scan, i can’t imagine that going to additional follow up scans is a significant barrier. I’m honestly surprised the need for invasive biopsy is so low (2%) and that the cancerous outcome of these biopsies is so high (50%+). I always worried that 95% rate of finding something meant a lot of invasive biopsies and procedures. This video sort of convinced me that these arent a bad idea lol
So you are saying that typically the whole body MRI scan (when no current symptoms or history exist) is an out of pocket payment and then if something is found (which it commonly does whether significant or not) you then need follow-up testing a good number of times and therefore need a health insurance plan that allows and pays the bulk of that cost without depleting your other coverage levels when at the end clinical findings requiring actual treatment are infrequent or rare. Is that the summary?
With all due respect Dr. My question is ... instead of a noninvasive mri for artery damage you would prescribe a statin that has side effects because of high cholesterol?
I love coronary calcium scores for the person trying to decide if a statin is worth it (usually with 10-year risk of 7.5% or higher). A whole body MRI is not the same thing.
Breast cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer fall in the top five causes of deaths from cancer so it warrants screening. We have hard data which indicates the onset of these cancers by age in addition to other risk factors. Full body MRI's on the hand belong to the "throwing spitballs against a wall and hoping something will stick" approach. The same thing applies to your car. If I plug in a diagnostic code reading scanner to a perfectly functioning care there's a good chance that a bunch of error messages will pop up on the reader that actually don't mean $hit. Talk to any mechanic.
The same applies to that coveted yearly physical that has become a sacrosanct ritual. Getting a yearly physical does not reduce mortality at all but it's a solid revenue generating source for the medical industry. Think of all the false positives and fishing expeditions generated by yearly physicals that turn out to be false positives. People in Western Europe don't do anywhere near the amount of screenings that Americans get and yet their life expectancy is higher than that of Americans.
I think there is pros/cons is getting a full body at once-just do it a bit at a time maybe every 6 months or a year! Also in UK as you know we have the NHS so wouldn't come out of your pocket-unless your rich or really rich and just went priv! Have you ever been to the UK, and if so whereabouts?
Very well done Christy. Reviewing the evidence and then putting it into terms of what it means is very helpful and useful for anyone considering a whole-body MRI. I was interested in doing it, but after watching your and other's videos, I don't think I will move ahead.
I think there is someone probably close to me in the family that’s sick and hasn’t said anything . It’s the total silence I don’t like . Then a phone call .
