Clinical value of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in health screening of general adult population

Abstract

BackgroundWhole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and angiography (WB-MRA) has become increasingly popular in population-based research. We evaluated retrospectively the frequency of potentially relevant incidental findings throughout the body.Materials and methods22 highly health-conscious managers (18 men, mean age 47±9 years) underwent WB-MRI and WB-MRA between March 2012 and September 2013 on a Discovery MR750w wide bore 3 Tesla device (GE Healthcare) using T1 weighted, short tau inversion recovery (STIR) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) acquisitions according to a standardized protocol.ResultsA suspicious (pararectal) malignancy was detected in one patient which was confirmed by an endorectal sonography. Incidental findings were described in 20 subjects, including hydrocele (11 patients), benign bony lesion (7 patients) and non-specific lymph nodes (5 patients). Further investigations were recommended in 68% (ultrasound: 36%, computed tomography: 28%, mammography: 9%, additional MRI: 9%). WB-MRA were negative in 16 subjects. Vascular normal variations were reported in 23%, and a 40% left proximal common carotid artery stenosis were described in one subject.ConclusionsWB-MRI and MRA lead to the detection of clinically relevant diseases and unexpected findings in a cohort of healthy adults that require further imaging or surveillance in 68%. WB-MR imaging may play a paramount role in health screening, especially in the future generation of (epi)genetic based screening of malignant and atherosclerotic disorders. Our study is the first which involved a highly selected patient group using a high field 3-T wide bore magnet system with T1, STIR, MRA and whole-body DWI acquisitions as well.

Whole‐body MRI for preventive health screening: A systematic review of the literature

“…After reviewing the full text, five studies were excluded because data were also used in another article from the same group, comprising a larger number of patients; one study was excluded because it only reported study rationale and design, and one study was excluded because it was not clear whether the head and neck region was included in the FOV . Eventually, 12 studies were included in this systematic review, published between 2005 and 2018 . Screening the reference lists of these articles did not result in other potentially relevant studies.…”

“…Tarnoki et al 19 Retrospective Not specified Yes A resident in radiology (2-4 years' experience) and two senior radiologists. Independent reading, discrepancies were resolved in consensus.…”

“…Reviewing titles and abstracts of the MEDLINE and Embase databases resulted in 19 studies that were potentially eligible for inclusion. 5,8,11,12,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] After reviewing the full text, five studies were excluded because data were also used in another article from the same group, comprising a larger number of patients 8,18,25,27,28 ; one study was excluded because it only reported study rationale and design, 22 and one study was excluded because it was not clear whether the head and neck region was included in the FOV. 22 Eventually, 12 studies were included in this systematic review, published between 2005 and 2018.…”

“…22 Eventually, 12 studies were included in this systematic review, published between 2005 and 2018. 5,11,12,[14][15][16][17][19][20][21]23,26 Screening the reference lists of these articles did not result in other potentially relevant studies. The principal characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 4.…”

Frequency, distribution and clinical management of incidental findings and extramedullary plasmacytomas in whole body diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients with multiple myeloma

“…6 A further smaller study of 22 healthy volunteers found 20 incidental findings in 20 participants, including a final diagnosis of malignancy in one participant. 7 A study of WB DW-MRI in patients with neurofibromatosis found incidental findings in 104 of 247 (42%) patients, with significant findings in 16 of 247 (6.5%). 8 Our study confirmed that incidental findings are common in WB DW-MRI examinations; however, as DW-MRI is helpful in tissue characterization, only a minority of scans (3%) resulted in equivocal incidental findings requiring further characterization, which limits the impact on patients and resources.…”