Imaging the testis: comparison between MR imaging and US.

Abstract

The potential role of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the diagnosis and local staging of testicular tumors was evaluated in 23 patients who subsequently underwent surgery or biopsy. Findings at MR imaging were compared with those at ultrasonography (US) and were correlated with the surgical-histologic findings. At surgery, three patients were found to have extratesticular and 20 patients intratesticular abnormalities. This distinction had been correctly made with both imaging modalities, but US did not demonstrate the intratesticular abnormality in four patients with diffuse infiltrating tumors. Neither modality allowed differentiation of benign from malignant disorders. When local tumor staging was analyzed in 11 patients, the accuracy of both modalities was disappointing (true-positive findings with MR imaging in seven patients and with US in five). At present, US remains the primary imaging modality for testicular disease. MR imaging should be employed when findings at physical examination and US are discrepant and considered when diffuse infiltrative disease is suspected.

Consensus on genitourinary trauma: external genitalia

“…Colour and pulsed Doppler SUS may diagnose testicular torsion where vascular flow of the gonad is absent [19]. Although MRI has been used to aid in the diagnosis of rupture in equivocal cases, widespread clinical use is not the norm as it is expensive and time-consuming [20,21].…”

Testicular schistosomiasis: a case study

“…Dauda and Rafindadi (19) and Lopes et al (20) warned that a testicular nodule should raise suspicion of numerous pathologies, including schistosomiasis. Because neither technique allows differentiation between benign and malignant disorders, biopsy is mandatory (21). Treatment of testicular schistosomiasis includes treatment with oxamniquine or praziquantel, with nodule excision whenever possible.…”

Testicular schistosomiasis caused by Schistosoma mansoni: a case report from Brazil

“…MRI might be better than ultrasonography to show intratesticular abnormalities, however, neither technique allows differentiation between benign and malignant disorders; therefore biopsy is mandatory [15].…”