[Skip to Navigation]
Views 975
Citations 0
March 18, 2021

Incidentalomas and the Ethical Dilemma Behind Imaging in Clinical Research

Author Affiliations
  • 1University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Medicine, Kansas City
  • 2Clinical Outcomes Research Office, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
  • 3Editor, JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery
JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2021;147(6):497-498. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2021.0133

In a cohort study evaluating functional brain connectivity in adults with postviral olfactory dysfunction before and after olfactory training,1 published in this issue of JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, our research group enrolled a random sample of 20 age-matched and sex-matched healthy controls to undergo functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain. The control participants were required to be normosmic as determined by the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Of the 20 healthy participants, 3 (15%) had incidental findings (IFs) deemed important enough to report to the individuals for clinical follow-up. One of the individuals had a parapharyngeal mass with enlarged nearby lymph nodes and subsequently underwent otolaryngologic evaluation and surgery. The other 2 participants had cavernomas. These participants were made aware of the potential associated risks (eg, bleeding, seizures) and were advised to follow up with a neurologist or neurosurgeon. Furthermore, several of the other control participants had comments in their radiology reports, such as mild sinus disease, age-related changes, and other findings.

Add or change institution
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words