Dear Editor,
We read with much interest the paper,[1] “Clinical significance of thyroid incidentalomas detected on fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan (PETomas): An Indian experience” by Kumar et al. published in the July–September 2019 issue of your journal. In April 2011, our team published our findings on this topic, at which time we suggested that this thyroid entity should be called “PETomas.”[2] We are, therefore, extremely surprised that Kumar et al. did not cite our publication and acknowledge our role in initiating the use of the term “PETomas.”
We would also like to draw the attention of your readers to a paper published in 2008 by Katz and Shaha of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, wherein they proposed that this thyroid finding should be called “PET-associated incidental neoplasms (PAINS).”[3] Neither “PAINS” nor “PETomas” have thus far caught on in the literature so that we heartily welcome the usage of “PETomas” by Kumar et al. We believe that this term is simple and meaningful.
