5 ms·

Scanning is still fairly invasive (w.r.t. radiation/dosages). And in general, the better the resolution, the more damaging. The bigger reason we don't continua

by toufka 12y ago

Scanning is still fairly invasive (w.r.t. radiation/dosages). And in general, the better the resolution, the more damaging. The bigger reason we don't continually scan people is that everyone has all sorts of little cancerous growths that are entirely benign. They would show up on these scans and freak people out. And often the overreaction of invasively removing those tiny little benign cancers can cause more problems. Don't misuse or abuse this information, but in general the 'abnormal growths' in a person are just that. They do very little and are just little bugs in the system. But the overall system is capable of dealing with them. It's the rare kind that is able to get around the entire body's defenses. But unfortunately it's difficult to tell which/when that happens. But again, if you took whole body scans all the time, and tried to root out all those little growths, you'd cause a lot more harm than good.

mikecsh 12y ago
>Scanning is still fairly invasive (w.r.t. radiation/dosages). And in general, the better the resolution, the more damaging. This guy had MRI scans which don't rely on ionising radiation and have no known adverse effects. >everyone has all sorts of little cancerous growths that are entirely benign When discussing tumours, cancerous and benign mean different things. You cannot have a benign cancerous growth. I think the main reason people aren't scanned routinely is due to the enormous cost of the scanning and the data analysis that currently relies on physicians for interpretation. My personal view is that with ever decreasing costs of MRI and improvements in computer vision and diagnostic algorithms, this could become a viable process in the future. As for not over-treating, that is a physician led decision - just because there is an anomaly on the scan does not mean that it will be removed or even necessarily treated at all.
- throwaway47385 12y ago
  > This guy had MRI scans which don't rely on ionising radiation and have no known adverse effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412810 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412810 Also, the price of a single scan is measured in thousands of dollars.
  - sghodas 12y ago
    I skimmed that study, but it looks like all the samples they tested came from the same guy, and they didn't actually test putting people in MRIs.
    - throwaway47385 12y ago
      Yes, the authors did base their paper on in vitro tests from a single individual. Another group attempted to reproduce the results of Lee, et al by performing a similar in vitro experiment, but failed to detect any DNA damage.[1] Nevertheless, in an article commentary published by the European Society of Cardiology [2], DNA damage was detected in an in vivo study of Cardiac MR (CMR) imaging, and a precautionary approach to MR imaging is recommended. They admit, though, that the study could not differentiate between the effects of the contrast agent used in CMR, and the effects MR imaging alone. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679232 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679232 [2] http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/30/2337 http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/30/2337
- a_c_s 12y ago
  While you are technically correct, it appears you've missed the point: being able to detect tumors better doesn't improve lifespan if we end up aggressively treating benign ones. This isn't a theoretical problem, rather one we are seeing right now. Look at thyroid cancer: detection and treatment rates are much higher than they used to be but the death rate has remained steady. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/health/study-warns-against-overdiagnosis-of-thyroid-cancer.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/health/study-warns-against...
  - mikecsh 12y ago
    Actually, I addressed this point in my original comment: > As for not over-treating, that is a physician led decision - just because there is an anomaly on the scan does not mean that it will be removed or even necessarily treated at all. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am saying that having cheaper, better scans with computer aided analysis is likely to be beneficial. I am not saying that every anomaly detected requires treatment. Treatment decisions are influenced by imaging but are not enforced by them.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > I think the main reason people aren't scanned routinely is due to the enormous cost of the scanning and the data analysis that currently relies on physicians for interpretation. The main reason is that doctors and regulators warn against it because, as patent says, people are chock full of scars and lumps and stuff that shows on scans but that is not in anyway harmful. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7150583.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7150583.stm > "If 100,000 people undergo a CT scan every five years from age 40 to 70 years...then the estimated impact is approximately 240 excess fatalities." Although that's talking about CT, not MRI, scans.
  - mikecsh 12y ago
    Yes, my comments are limited to MRI. A full-body CT scan is a very large dose of radiation.
rudolf0 12y ago
If this technology came with a feature to easily biopsy all the growths and tumors, and send them to a lab, do you think it would be beneficial then?
- toufka 12y ago
  There's a significant school of thought that the structure of biological material helps ensure it works properly, and that an otherwise benign feature might actually become more harmful when their local environment is disturbed (possibly, by a biopsy). Biopsies are a very useful tool, but you don't want to do lots and lots of them if you can help it.
  - rudolf0 12y ago
    I understand, but I think medical technology is inevitably moving in the direction of some degree of consistent self-testing and monitoring, and I expect small biopsies of suspicious masses will eventually be implemented in a way that causes almost no structural changes. I think this is how average lifespans are going to start rising dramatically in the next few centuries, but it's going to be a long and slow process.

by toufka 12y ago

mikecsh 12y ago

>Scanning is still fairly invasive (w.r.t. radiation/dosages). And in general, the better the resolution, the more damaging. This guy had MRI scans which don't rely on ionising radiation and have no known adverse effects. >everyone has all sorts of little cancerous growths that are entirely benign When discussing tumours, cancerous and benign mean different things. You cannot have a benign cancerous growth. I think the main reason people aren't scanned routinely is due to the enormous cost of the scanning and the data analysis that currently relies on physicians for interpretation. My personal view is that with ever decreasing costs of MRI and improvements in computer vision and diagnostic algorithms, this could become a viable process in the future. As for not over-treating, that is a physician led decision - just because there is an anomaly on the scan does not mean that it will be removed or even necessarily treated at all.

throwaway47385 12y ago
> This guy had MRI scans which don't rely on ionising radiation and have no known adverse effects. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412810 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21412810 Also, the price of a single scan is measured in thousands of dollars.
- sghodas 12y ago
  I skimmed that study, but it looks like all the samples they tested came from the same guy, and they didn't actually test putting people in MRIs.
  - throwaway47385 12y ago
    Yes, the authors did base their paper on in vitro tests from a single individual. Another group attempted to reproduce the results of Lee, et al by performing a similar in vitro experiment, but failed to detect any DNA damage.[1] Nevertheless, in an article commentary published by the European Society of Cardiology [2], DNA damage was detected in an in vivo study of Cardiac MR (CMR) imaging, and a precautionary approach to MR imaging is recommended. They admit, though, that the study could not differentiate between the effects of the contrast agent used in CMR, and the effects MR imaging alone. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679232 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23679232 [2] http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/30/2337 http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/30/2337
a_c_s 12y ago
While you are technically correct, it appears you've missed the point: being able to detect tumors better doesn't improve lifespan if we end up aggressively treating benign ones. This isn't a theoretical problem, rather one we are seeing right now. Look at thyroid cancer: detection and treatment rates are much higher than they used to be but the death rate has remained steady. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/health/study-warns-against-overdiagnosis-of-thyroid-cancer.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/health/study-warns-against...
- mikecsh 12y ago
  Actually, I addressed this point in my original comment: > As for not over-treating, that is a physician led decision - just because there is an anomaly on the scan does not mean that it will be removed or even necessarily treated at all. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am saying that having cheaper, better scans with computer aided analysis is likely to be beneficial. I am not saying that every anomaly detected requires treatment. Treatment decisions are influenced by imaging but are not enforced by them.
DanBC 12y ago
> I think the main reason people aren't scanned routinely is due to the enormous cost of the scanning and the data analysis that currently relies on physicians for interpretation. The main reason is that doctors and regulators warn against it because, as patent says, people are chock full of scars and lumps and stuff that shows on scans but that is not in anyway harmful. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7150583.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7150583.stm > "If 100,000 people undergo a CT scan every five years from age 40 to 70 years...then the estimated impact is approximately 240 excess fatalities." Although that's talking about CT, not MRI, scans.
- mikecsh 12y ago
  Yes, my comments are limited to MRI. A full-body CT scan is a very large dose of radiation.

rudolf0 12y ago

If this technology came with a feature to easily biopsy all the growths and tumors, and send them to a lab, do you think it would be beneficial then?

toufka 12y ago
There's a significant school of thought that the structure of biological material helps ensure it works properly, and that an otherwise benign feature might actually become more harmful when their local environment is disturbed (possibly, by a biopsy). Biopsies are a very useful tool, but you don't want to do lots and lots of them if you can help it.
- rudolf0 12y ago
  I understand, but I think medical technology is inevitably moving in the direction of some degree of consistent self-testing and monitoring, and I expect small biopsies of suspicious masses will eventually be implemented in a way that causes almost no structural changes. I think this is how average lifespans are going to start rising dramatically in the next few centuries, but it's going to be a long and slow process.