Well this is the problem with all "screening". Figuring out the false positives and deciding if the damage from them is worth the benefit of the screen.
As you all know, this is still a question under great debate for the standard screening procedures, such as for prostate and breast cancers. What seems clear one year will shift back and forth for and against as time passes.
Total body "scanning" is largely profit driven. Once you've bought the machine, you need to shove as many people as possible through it to make it economically viable. And once you've seen something looking a bit different, you're pretty much obligated to perform more testing, even if the odds are that the different thing is of little significance.
That's the place where the downside of the screening scan becomes evident, and often negates the well publicized case report of "old Johnny whose life was saved by diagnosing that growth he never knew he had".