CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Adrenal and Paraganglionic TumorsAdrenal Hormones and DisordersHormonal Regulation and Hypertension

Incidental Asymptomatic Adrenal Masses Detected by Computed Tomographic Scanning: Is Operation Required?

Prinz, Richard A.·1982·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.1982.03330060041031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Until recently, adrenal masses came to clinical attention either from local symptoms due to massive enlargement or from manifestations of excess hormone production. During the last year, an adrenal mass was identified as an incidental finding in nine patients undergoing abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scanning for unrelated problems. These five men and four women ranged in age from 41 to 73 years. Eight were hypertensive. After the CT scan, each was evaluated for catecholamine or steroid hypersecretion. Only one had clearly elevated urinary vanillylmandelic acid, metanephrine, and catecholamine levels. Equivocal evidence of catecholamine excess was seen in five patients who had slight elevation of one urinary metabolite or of plasma epinephrine or norepinephrine levels. Three patients had no evidence of medullary or cortical hyperfunction on repeated testing. Eight patients were good operative risks and underwent unilateral adrenalectomy without complication. Masses ranging in size from 1 to 4 cm were found in each. These included four cortical adenomas, two adrenal cysts, one adrenal lipoma, and one pheochromocytoma. The pheochromocytoma occurred in the patient with strong biochemical evidence of disease. With wider application of CT imaging, increasing numbers of asymptomatic adrenal masses will be detected. Care in interpreting the clinical significance of these masses and caution in recommending treatment are required. (JAMA1982;248:701-704)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.1982.03330060041031

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The first CT scan series regarding AIs, published between 1982 and 1986, reported a prevalence of 0.6% to 1.3%, which likely represents an underestimation due to low-resolution technology and failure to detect smaller lesions.

    “The first CT scan series regarding AIs, published between 1982 and 1986, reported a prevalence of 0.6% to 1.3% (33-35), which likely represents an underestimation due to the low-resolution technology available at the time and failure to detect smaller lesions.”

    From Adrenal incidentaloma (2020) · cites this paper as [34]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prinz, R. A.
Corresponding author
Prinz, Richard A.
ORCID
Prinz, Richard A.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1982-08-13
Volume
248
Issue
6
Pages
701
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.1982.03330060041031
OpenAlex
W7214212899
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
JAMA (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Adrenal and Paraganglionic Tumors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Keywords
adrenal incidentaloma, adrenal adenoma, adrenal cyst, adrenal lipoma, pheochromocytoma, catecholamine excess, adrenal hyperfunction, unilateral adrenalectomy, hypertension, urinary catecholamines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review