Incidentalomas. A disease of modern technology.

The optimal strategy for hormonal screening of a patient with any incidentally discovered adrenal or pituitary mass is unknown. Our review of the endocrinologic literature supports the view that such patients are at slightly increased risk for morbidity and mortality. There is a benefit of early diagnosis for at least for some of the disorders, suggesting the importance of case finding. The data in Tables 1 and 4 illustrate that clinically diagnosed hormone-secreting adrenal and pituitary tumors are far less common than incidentalomas. From a clinical perspective, our ability to determine accurately those at increased risk among the vast majority who are not at increased risk is poor. Given the limitations of diagnostic tests, effective hormonal screening requires a sufficiently high pretest probability to limit the number of false-positive results. This condition is met to varying degrees in the patient with an adrenal mass or small incidentally discovered pituitary mass but no signs or symptoms of hormone excess. Even the more common lesions such as pheochromocytoma and prolactinoma are relatively rare. Subjecting patients to unnecessary testing and treatment carries its own set of risks. Initial costs aside, testing may result in further expense and harm as false-positive results are pursued, producing the cascade effect described by Mold and Stein as a "chain of events (which) tends to proceed with increasing momentum, so that the further it progresses the more difficult it is to stop." The extensive evaluations performed in some patients with incidentally discovered masses may reflect the unwillingness of many physicians to accept uncertainty, even in the case of extremely unlikely diagnoses. This unwillingness may be driven, in part, by fear of potential malpractice liability, the failure to appreciate the influence of prevalence data on the interpretation of diagnostic testing, or other factors. Indeed, the major justification for further evaluation of these patients is not so much to avoid morbidity and mortality for rate patients who truly are at increased risk but rather to reassure those in whom further testing is negative (and to reassure ourselves). Physicians must take care not to create inappropriate anxiety in patients by overemphasizing the importance of an incidental finding unless it is associated with a realistic clinical risk. Our recommendations utilize currently available information to minimize the untoward effects of the cascade. As evidence accumulates, recommendations may need to be revised. The benefit of diagnosis of one of these adrenal or pituitary disorders must be considered in the context of the patient's overall condition. Studies are needed to analyze the utility in clinical practice of hormonal screening for these common radiologic findings. We need to use these studies to identify the critical gaps in our knowledge and to adopt the epidemiologic methods of evaluation of evidence that have been applied to preventive measures. We must be careful to recognize lead-time bias in which survival can seem to be lengthened when screening simply advances the time of diagnosis, lengthening the period of time between diagnosis and death without any true prolongation of life. Length bias refers to the tendency of screening to detect a disproportionate number of cases of slowly progressive disease and to miss aggressive cases that, by virtue of rapid progression, are present in the population only briefly. Endocrinologists must avoid the pitfalls of overestimation of disease prevalence and of the benefits of therapy resulting from advances in diagnostic imaging. Clinical judgment based on the best available evidence should be complemented and not replaced by laboratory data.