Screening & monitoring
Whole-body MRI screening (asymptomatic adults)
Graded on: cancer mortality or all-cause mortality in asymptomatic screened adults.
Grade D, not yet tested: no human randomized trial has been run. This D records missing trials, not a finding that it does not work. How to read a grade →
Compare this record with another, side by side →
How this letter has changedLatest: October 2026 · Corrected.
The ref called Zugni et al. (Cancer Imaging, 2020; PMID PubMed ID: the permanent number the US National Library of Medicine gives a published paper. Each one links to that paper's record on PubMed. 32393345) a systematic review A review that searches for every study on a question using a method set in advance, then assesses them together.; it is a review and recommendations without formal risk-of-bias appraisal, now labeled so, with its per-subject figures added (cancer suspected in 1.8 percent, confirmed in 1.1 percent). Added: Kwee et al. (J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; PMID 30932247), Martins da Fonseca et al. (Eur Radiol, 2026; PMID 40884613) and Ahsan et al. (J Gen Intern Med, 2026; PMID 42823587), all pooling yield studies with no outcome data, and the 2026 Cochrane protocol (Chen et al., Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2026; PMID 42639816). grade_basis now names Route 1 in words. The absence check was re-run with the same result. D Route 1 unchanged. Applied the written grade definition under the editor's standing instruction of October 2026 (Arnold Sandlow, D.C.).PMID 30932247 PMID 32393345 PMID 40884613 PMID 42639816 PMID 42823587
Every change to a letter on this site is dated and published. The full evidence log →
Whole-body MRI scans look for disease in people who feel well. No study has tested whether these scans help people live longer. In over 6,000 scans of healthy people, 95 percent found something unusual. Most of those findings were harmless, but they often led to more tests. Very few were cancer.
A letter describes the human evidence, not the product, the manufacturer, or the intervention's worth.
See the full evidence record →No human randomized trial has tested this at the dose and form graded, so there is nothing for a higher letter to rest on. A Route 1 Grade D records the absence of trials. It is not a finding against the compound, and it is not a finding that the compound is safe, because neither has been established. It may turn out to work once someone tests it. The grade moves when a qualifying human trial reports.
Graded on Cancer mortality or all-cause mortality in asymptomatic screened adults.
Why this gradeGrade D, not yet tested. The reasoning, and what the grade does not cover.
Grade D on Route 1: untested. No randomized trial has tested whether whole-body MRI screening of asymptomatic adults reduces mortality, so there is no benefit evidence to grade, and a Cochrane review protocol registered in 2026 (PMID 42639816) is the first formal attempt to look for one. What the literature does establish, and establishes well, is what the scan finds. In 6,214 scans of asymptomatic people, 95 percent produced an abnormal finding and only 5 percent came back clean; 30 percent of subjects had findings requiring further investigation; and of nearly 18,000 abnormal findings, 91 percent were benign while 0.5 percent of lesions were suspicious for cancer. The dominant measured outcome of scanning a healthy person is therefore a finding that is not cancer and that generates more testing. That is not an argument against imaging, which answers questions superbly when there is a question. It is the difference between a diagnostic test and a screening program: a screening program has to show that finding things earlier makes people live longer, and no trial has yet been run to ask. Newer pooled analyses find confirmed cancer in 1.4 to 1.6 percent of people scanned (PMID 40884613; PMID 42823587) with clinical outcomes unknown.
A grade describes the human evidence for a named use. It is not advice, and it is not a judgment on any individual prescription. How the letters are decided →
Near-universal incidental findings are the documented harm here, not a theoretical one. Across 6,214 examinations in the cited systematic review, 95 percent of asymptomatic subjects had an abnormal finding and 30 percent were sent for further investigation, while cancer was suspected in 1.8 percent and confirmed in 1.1 percent. Of 17,961 abnormal findings, 91 percent were benign.
The evidence, in fullFive papers, each linked to its PubMed record.
Zugni et al. (Cancer Imaging, 2020; PMID 32393345) - review and recommendations on whole-body MRI for cancer screening in asymptomatic subjects from the general population, pooling 12 studies and 6,214 examinations without a formal risk-of-bias appraisal. Of 17,961 abnormal findings reported, 91 percent were benign, 9 percent were oncologically relevant and required further investigation, and 0.5 percent of lesions were suspicious for cancer. On a per-subject basis, 5 percent of people had no abnormal findings and 95 percent had one or more; 30 percent had findings requiring further investigation; cancer was suspected in 1.8 percent and histologically confirmed in 1.1 percent. Kwee et al. (J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; PMID 30932247): systematic review and meta-analysis A study that pools the numbers from several trials into one combined estimate. of 12 studies and 5,373 asymptomatic adults; critical or indeterminate incidental findings in 32 percent, with no long-term verification. Martins da Fonseca et al. (Eur Radiol, 2026; PMID 40884613): 10 studies and 9,024 people; confirmed cancer in 1.57 percent, most studies at moderate to serious risk of bias, no outcome data. Ahsan et al. (J Gen Intern Med, 2026; PMID 42823587): 17 low-quality studies and 18,043 people; actionable non-malignant findings in 14.8 percent, of whom 20.8 percent went on to a procedure; malignancy in 1.4 percent; clinical outcomes could not be determined. Chen et al. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2026; PMID 42639816): a protocol for a Cochrane review of whole-body MRI or CT screening on morbidity and mortality, the first formal search for trials; a protocol, not a review. Grade D, Route 1.
Nothing validated. A clear scan does not establish absence of disease, and the 30 percent further-investigation rate is the number worth knowing before booking one.
Evidence notes: no randomized trial
Endpoint The outcome a trial measures to decide whether the treatment worked, such as heart attacks, blood pressure or a symptom score. graded: Cancer mortality or all-cause mortality in asymptomatic screened adults (hard)
Last reviewed: August 2026
Educational use only · Not medical advice · EBL grades published human evidence and does not recommend treatment. Stopping a prescription is a decision for your physician.
Primary evidenceFive papers, each linked to its PubMed record.
Zugni et al. (Cancer Imaging, 2020; PMID 32393345) - review and recommendations on whole-body MRI for cancer screening in asymptomatic subjects from the general population, pooling 12 studies and 6,214 examinations without a formal risk-of-bias appraisal. Of 17,961 abnormal findings reported, 91 percent were benign, 9 percent were oncologically relevant and required further investigation, and 0.5 percent of lesions were suspicious for cancer. On a per-subject basis, 5 percent of people had no abnormal findings and 95 percent had one or more; 30 percent had findings requiring further investigation; cancer was suspected in 1.8 percent and histologically confirmed in 1.1 percent. Kwee et al. (J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019; PMID 30932247): systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 studies and 5,373 asymptomatic adults; critical or indeterminate incidental findings in 32 percent, with no long-term verification. Martins da Fonseca et al. (Eur Radiol, 2026; PMID 40884613): 10 studies and 9,024 people; confirmed cancer in 1.57 percent, most studies at moderate to serious risk of bias, no outcome data. Ahsan et al. (J Gen Intern Med, 2026; PMID 42823587): 17 low-quality studies and 18,043 people; actionable non-malignant findings in 14.8 percent, of whom 20.8 percent went on to a procedure; malignancy in 1.4 percent; clinical outcomes could not be determined. Chen et al. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2026; PMID 42639816): a protocol for a Cochrane review of whole-body MRI or CT screening on morbidity and mortality, the first formal search for trials; a protocol, not a review. Grade D, Route 1.
This page carries a letter. EBL takes no commission, referral fee or payment of any kind on anything it grades. No letter has been bought and none is for sale. Products listed under this modality may be commercial partners, and their purchase links may earn EBL a commission. Those products carry no letter of their own, every relationship is disclosed beside the link, and where a product does not deliver what the trials tested, this page says so regardless of who pays.
How this is enforced
That is not a promise, it is a build condition. Two checks run on every deploy: one refuses to publish if a commission is claimed on anything graded, the other refuses if a page names a commercial relationship that is not declared in the register. If either fails, this page does not go live. You can read how the checks work, and what they do not cover, on the evidence integrity page.
Evidence Based Longevity, Inc. is owner-operated and edited by Arnold Sandlow, D.C., a California-licensed chiropractor. Evidence Based Longevity publishes in English only · Machine translations are not produced or reviewed by EBL for accuracy
© Evidence Based Longevity, Inc.. All rights reserved
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. Any grade on this page describes the strength of published human trial evidence in the populations studied. It is not a recommendation for any individual and is not medical advice. Starting, stopping or changing any supplement or medication is a decision for your physician.
Grades move when new trials publish. A free monthly email lists every grade EBL moved, with the reason and the trial behind it: the sign-up is on the Evidence Log →