[AlphaOne1]

The question that needs to asked though is: what would you do with that information? Would you be willing to undergo biopsy (which is the standard for diagnosis) knowing there is a non-zero risk of complication. What if the biopsy is not conclusive? Do we then do a major surgery which includes risk of death? Imaging is NOT diagnostic for tumors. For most lesions, you have to take tissue samples.

Disclosure: I'm a pathologist.

[SemanticStrengh]

> what would you do with that information? Well for starters anyone should check he has the right number of each organ, and at the right place (not ectoplasmic), and that their shape and volume is not pathologic. You should also check your bones joints to check wether you have metallic accumulation or not. It's not just about tumors. In any cases, there are generally many possibles diagnosises that do not involve a biopsy, such as blood/urine/lymph/fecal biomarkers, and DNA testing. In some cases you might even consider biofluorescence. Secondly, if a thing look like a tumor, I would study the risk and if very low I would proceed for a biopsy (risk seems OK) or otherwise use anticarcinogenic drugs. I would not proceed to a risky surgery unless necessary though, especially in an era where potent anticarcinogenic exists such as PNC-27

BTW it's very cool that this is a thing> https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/visible/getting_data.html