It should have been a moment of huge relief. The biopsy specimenof the temporal artery was positive. We had answered the riddleof the patient's year-long fatigue, limb pain, and turbine-likenoises in his head. He had giant-cell arteritis notcancer, as he had feared. His disease would respond quicklyto prednisone, and we had made the diagnosis before he had lostvision. The biopsy findings constituted a eureka moment.1
There was, however, a fly in the ointment. The report of thecomputed tomographic scan of the patient's abdomen, performedin search of an explanation for the symptoms . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Source Information
Dr. Stone is an associate professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.
This article has been cited by other articles:
MacHaalany, J., Yam, Y., Ruddy, T. D., Abraham, A., Chen, L., Beanlands, R. S., Chow, B. J.W.
(2009). Potential clinical and economic consequences of noncardiac incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography.. J Am Coll Cardiol
54: 1533-1541
[Abstract][Full Text]
Hlatky, M. A., Iribarren, C.
(2009). The dilemma of incidental findings on cardiac computed tomography.. J Am Coll Cardiol
54: 1542-1543
[Full Text]
Silverman, S. G., Israel, G. M., Herts, B. R., Richie, J. P.
(2008). Management of the Incidental Renal Mass. Radiology
249: 16-31
[Abstract][Full Text]