Radiologists warn against elective whole-body MRI screening

Two radiologists are warning consumers against elective whole-body MRI screening for the general public, arguing in JAMA that the practice is not supported by evidence and may cause more harm than benefit.

Matthew S. Davenport, MD, MBA, of Michigan Medicine, and Scott B. Reeder, MD, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, wrote the editorial as commercial whole-body MRI services gain attention among consumers seeking early detection of cancer and other diseases.

Michigan Medicine said the editorial cites more than 100,000 elective MRI customers to date, despite the lack of endorsements from relevant professional organizations. The authors noted that these scans are being marketed to people without symptoms or known high-risk conditions.

Whole-body MRI screening is recommended in evidence-based guidelines only for selected high-risk groups, such as patients with specific genetic syndromes linked to aggressive cancers that may be curable if detected early, according to the editorial. The concern is that screening average-risk adults produces too many uncertain findings relative to the likelihood of finding a disease that will change outcomes.

The authors wrote that elective whole-body MRI for the general population is “unproven, and the harms likely outweigh the benefits.”

Potential harms include false-positive findings, overdiagnosis, anxiety, and downstream procedures such as biopsies or surgeries. Michigan Medicine summarized the authors’ warning that slow-growing or benign conditions can appear similar to more serious disease on MRI, creating uncertainty that may trigger additional testing.

Davenport said nonspecific findings can cause emotional harm while patients wait for a clearer diagnosis, and that the diagnosis may not come for years, if ever.

The editorial also draws a distinction between evidence-based screening programs and broad commercial screening. Established programs for conditions such as breast, colorectal, cervical, lung, and prostate cancer are targeted to groups with sufficient pretest risk, the authors noted. That risk threshold matters because the benefit of screening must exceed cumulative harm.

The University of Wisconsin-Madison said the authors warned consumers with no known genetic risks against seeking whole-body MRI. Reeder and Davenport argued that evidence is lacking that the scans improve health or reduce mortality, while the risk of unnecessary follow-up remains real.

Commercial interest has continued to rise. Michigan Medicine said hospital systems and specialized companies are offering elective MRI screening, often as direct-to-consumer services. The editorial does not argue against MRI itself, but against broad use of whole-body MRI screening in average-risk people without evidence that it improves survival or quality of life.

For radiologists, the editorial reinforces a growing patient-education challenge. As preventive imaging becomes more visible to consumers, imaging specialists may need to explain why more imaging is not always better and why screening decisions depend on risk, evidence, and downstream consequences.