First, let me explain what a full-body scan is. This fifteen-minute noninvasive procedure uses high-speed computed tomography (C1) to provide detailed three-dimensional images of all the major organs, including the heart, lungs, spine, and liver. It is generally available only to those willing to pay the cost: $650 to $1,500 out of their own pockets. Insurers don’t routinely cover this type of screening unless it’s ordered to investigate specific symptoms.

Even if you have enough money to undergo one of these scans, should you?

Probably not. In all likelihood, the scan will find an abnormality, which may actually be a “normality” for you or something quite benign-but over which you are likely to experience significant trepidation and anxiety. You will rush your report to your doctor, who will then be charged with interpreting whether the abnormality is serious or inconsequential. You’ll be subjected to further tests and further anxiety.

Even if the scan finds you in the clear, this may give you a false sense of security and possibly prevent you from seeking appropriate care from your doctor or beginning beneficial lifestyle changes. Someone who smokes, for example, and gets a clear lung scan may decide that it’s okay to keep on smoking. Also, full-body scans are not a substitute for an annual checkup or appropriate screening tests.

Nor does a full-body scan find everything. For instance, it cannot pick up many debilitating and deadly conditions-like elevated blood pressure, high blood sugar, hormonal disturbances, leukemia, or abnormal cholesterol levels. Please note, too, that full-body scans are performed without intravenous dye or “contrast” injections, thereby providing limited information  about the abdomen and pelvis, so small lesions in the liver, pancreas; and kidneys can he missed. Some professional organ cations, including the American College of Radiology, oppose full-body scanning as a screening tool for people with no disease symptoms or family history of a diagnosable problem. Further, the US Food and Drug Administration has raised concerns about radiation levels.

There’s no doubt that CT scans offer great potential as screening tools. But they do expose you to radiation that far exceeds that of a - routine chest X-ray. They provide useful snapshots of the coronary arteries, and for heavy smokers, lung scans are excellent at pinpointing tumors. Someday they may even replace more invasive tests But in my opinion we’re just not there yet. Other medical tests are much more conclusive.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.