Whole-Body MRI in Preventive Medicine: Evaluating the Current Evidence
Beyond the hype, whole-body MRI offers limited clinical benefit in the general population with extraneous use potentially triggering a cycle of overdiagnosis, unnecessary treatment and financial strain.
Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) has gained widespread attention as a cutting-edge, radiation-free tool for early disease detection. Marketed by wellness clinics and amplified by social media influencers, WB-MRI is often portrayed as a proactive lifestyle upgrade rather than a clinical intervention. Posts on social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok glamorize bundled medical vacations or discounted international scans, framing WB-MRI as a luxury health service. Yet, despite its growing popularity, WB-MRI’s use in asymptomatic individuals remains poorly supported by clinical evidence.1
Proponents argue that WB-MRI offers peace of mind and the potential to catch rare but serious conditions early. However, these benefits remain largely anecdotal and unsupported by population-level data. This discrepancy is clear in how WB-MRI is portrayed on social media. A 2025 study analyzing social media content across five medical tests, including WB-MRI, found that 87.1 percent of posts were framed positively with 83.8 percent overtly promotional. Only 14.7 percent mentioned potential harms and overdiagnosis was acknowledged in just 6.1 percent. Nearly 70 percent of influencers had financial ties to the services they endorsed with about half specifically involving MRI.2
What the Literature Reveals About WB-MRI’s Utility in Select Populations
While WB-MRI has little utility in the general population, it plays a valuable role in defined clinical settings. These include cancer surveillance for patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome and other hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes, pediatric oncology, and select metastatic workups.3-5 Even within these groups, WB-MRI may still serve as a second-line modality depending on the tumor type and location.6 Outside of such contexts, its application is infrequently supported by robust clinical evidence.
WB-MRI: A Modality That Requires Clinical Context
Magnetic resonance imaging is most effective when protocols are aligned to answer targeted clinical questions. Its strength lies in high-resolution imaging optimized for specific body regions and conditions. Neurological, musculoskeletal, and oncologic evaluations each require distinct sequences and tailored approaches. Whole-body MRI, by design, prioritizes breadth over depth, using streamlined protocols that sacrifice diagnostic specificity for speed and anatomical coverage, even when performed on high-field 3T systems. Artifacts and technical limitations may further degrade image quality or obscure subtle pathology.7
Without a guiding clinical question, imaging becomes exploratory rather than diagnostic and increases the likelihood of ambiguous or misleading results. In some cases, other modalities, such as computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, positron emission tomography (PET), or even conventional radiographs may be more appropriate depending on the clinical scenario.
Incidental Findings and a Diagnostic Cascade
Beyond technical limitations, WB-MRI’s broad scope often uncovers incidental findings or “incidentalomas” that are common and usually benign.8 Rates of incidental findings approach 30 to 40 percent in some studies with brain MRIs displaying similar patterns.9,10 As WB-MRI use expands beyond appropriate populations, the frequency and consequences of these findings will rise.
These findings often trigger additional tests and procedures, many of which do not alter clinical outcomes. In a population-based cohort study, individuals undergoing WB-MRI were more likely to receive biopsies, but the vast majority of findings were benign.11 In many cases, findings fall into diagnostic gray zones, prompting further workup with limited clinical value. While the American College of Radiology (ACR) provides some guidance for select incidental findings, many scenarios still lack clear recommendations.10,12
This may set off a cycle of overdiagnosis and potentially unnecessary treatment with outcomes influenced more by the volume of findings than by clinical necessity. Lead time and length biases further distort perceived benefits, creating an illusion of early detection without improving morbidity or mortality.8,13
Recognizing the High Cost and Hidden Risks of WB-MRI
Though free of ionizing radiation, WB-MRI is not without risk. The risk may lie in what the scan reveals and how those findings are interpreted. Ambiguous results can lead to distress, interventions, and financial strain. While some individuals feel reassured, others experience lasting anxiety, shaped by individual traits, expectations and how results are communicated.14,15
The financial implications are equally concerning. In the United States, WB-MRI often costs thousands of dollars and is rarely covered by insurance.16,17 Even discounted international scans may offer limited clinical value relative to their cost. Unlike validated screening tools such as mammography, colonoscopy, and low-dose CT, endorsed by both the United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) and American Cancer Society, WB-MRI lacks long-term data and support from public health guidelines.18,19
Globally, low-value imaging is a major contributor to health-care waste. A 2024 systematic review estimated the cost burden in the billions annually.20 These costs extend beyond the scan itself to downstream testing, procedures, and clinical follow-up that rarely improve patient outcomes. When scaled across populations, even benign or incidental findings can trigger cycles of care that drain resources without delivering clinical benefit.
This pattern underscores the need for consistent, practical guidelines. However, as Kjelle and colleagues point out, other systemic barriers also play a role, and existing guidelines, while helpful, have limited long-term impact.18 It is a multifaceted problem embedded at every level of the health-care system. These risks reflect the broader challenges inherent to imaging itself, independent of radiation exposure.
Emphasizing The Role of Clinical Discipline
Radiologists must continue to advocate for appropriate imaging use and educate clinicians on WB-MRI’s limitations. However, responsibility also lies with referring clinicians and health-care systems that must navigate increasing consumer demand and commercial promotion to ensure imaging decisions remain clinically grounded with clear clinical indications. Diagnostic imaging should be guided by clinical reasoning – not by curiosity, consumer demand, or reassurance alone.
In Conclusion
Whole-body MRI has a defined role in select high-risk patients where its broad scope aligns with specific clinical goals. However, as a general screening tool for asymptomatic individuals, WB-MRI currently lacks evidence of benefit and may carry risks. Existing whole-body protocols trade precision for coverage, increasing the likelihood of incidental findings, unnecessary interventions, and potential patient harm.
As wellness culture continues to blur the line between screening and consumer health services, there is growing urgency to align diagnostic imaging with evidence-based care. More imaging does not always mean better care. Better judgment does and every test should begin with a question worth answering. In the future, a more clearly defined role for WB-MRI in preventative medicine may emerge but for now, its use outside of clinical indications remains uncertain.
Dr. Makary is an associate professor of radiology at the Ohio State University College of Medicine.
Ms. Almashni is a third-year medical student at the Ohio State University College of Medicine.
References
- Zugni F, Padhani AR, Koh DM, Summers PE, Bellomi M, Petralia G. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) for cancer screening in asymptomatic subjects of the general population: review and recommendations. Cancer Imaging. 2020;20(1):34.
2. Nickel B, Moynihan R, Gram EG, et al. Social media posts about medical tests with potential for overdiagnosis. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(2):e2461940. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.61940.
3. Goo HW. Whole-body MRI in children: current imaging techniques and clinical applications. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16(5):973-985.
4. Petralia G, Padhani AR, Summers PE, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) for cancer screening: recommendations for use. Radiol Med. 2021;126(11):1434-1450.
5. Summers PE, Busacchio D, Petralia G, et al. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: technique, guidelines and key applications. Ecancermedicalscience. 2021;15:1164.
6. Ahlawat S, Fayad LM, Fayad LM, et al. Clinical applications and controversies of whole-body MRI: AJR expert panel narrative review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2023;220(4):463-475.
7. Barth MM, Smith MP, Pedrosa I, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges. Radiographics. 2007;27(5):1445-1462.
8. Davenport MS. Incidental findings and low-value care. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2023;221(1):117-123.
9. Lumbreras B, Donat L, Hernández-Aguado I. Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(988):276-289.
10. Sunny DE, Amoo M, Al Breiki M, et al. Prevalence of incidental intracranial findings on magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2022;164(10):2751-2765.
11. Richter A, Sierocinski E, Singer S, et al. The effects of incidental findings from whole-body MRI on the frequency of biopsies and detected malignancies or benign conditions in a general population cohort study. Eur J Epidemiol. 2020;35(10):925-935.
12. American College of Radiology. Incidental findings publications. https://www.acr.org/clinical-resources/clinical-tools-and-reference/Incidental-Findings . Accessed June 20, 2025.
13. Kwee RM, Kwee TC. Whole-body MRI for preventive health screening: a systematic review of the literature. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;50(5):1489-1503.
14. Busacchio D, Mazzoni D, Mazzocco K, et al. Psychological characteristics and satisfaction for the whole-body MRI in cancer screening. Psychol Health Med. 2023;28(2):548-554.
15. Conti L, Busacchio D, Petralia G, et al. Detection of abnormal findings following a cancer screening WB-MRI in asymptomatic subjects: psychological consequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2025;61(2):634-645.
16. How Much Does a Full Body Scan Cost? https://www.howmuchisit.org/full-body-mri-cost/ . Accessed June 20, 2025.
17. How Much Does an MRI Cost? https://www.thepricer.org/the-cost-of-an-mri/. Accessed June 20, 2025.
18. Kjelle E, Brandsæter IØ, Andersen ER, Hofmann BM. Cost of low-value imaging worldwide: a systematic review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2024;22(4):485-501. doi:10.1007/s40258-024-00876-2.
19. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Published recommendations. Accessed June 20, 2025. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org
20. American Cancer Society Screening Guidelines. Guidelines for the early detection of cancer. Updated 2023. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/screening/american-cancer-society-guidelines-for-the-early-detection-of-cancer.html . Accessed June 20, 2025.
Newsletter
Stay at the forefront of radiology with the Diagnostic Imaging newsletter, delivering the latest news, clinical insights, and imaging advancements for today’s radiologists.
The Reading Room Podcast: A Closer Look at Remote MRI Safety, Part 2
July 25th 2025In the second of a multi-part podcast episode, Emanuel Kanal, M.D. and Tobias Gilk, MRSO, MRSE, share their perspectives on remote MRI safety protocols for ensuring screening accuracy and adherence to conditional implant guidelines as well as a rapid and effective response to adverse events.
The Reading Room Podcast: Current and Emerging Insights on Abbreviated Breast MRI, Part 2
July 23rd 2025In the second part of a multi-part podcast episode, Stamatia Destounis, MD, Emily Conant, MD and Habib Rahbar, MD, discuss key sequences for abbreviated breast MRI and how it stacks up to other breast cancer screening modalities.
