Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound evaluation of penile and testicular masses

被引:0
|
作者
E. Andipa
K. Liberopoulos
C. Asvestis
机构
[1] Athens General Hospital “G. Gennimatas”,Department of Radiologic Imaging
[2] 4 Maragou,Athenian Group for the Study of Andrological Disease
来源
World Journal of Urology | 2004年 / 22卷
关键词
Ultrasound; MRI; Testicular neoplasms; Penile neoplasms; Orcheoepididymitis;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The purpose of this study is to present the role of ultrasonography and MRI in the investigation of testicular and penile masses, as well as to review the literature. This article is based on our experience with 230 patients who presented with acute or subacute scrotal pain or painless enlargement of the scrotum or penis. Gray scale and color Doppler ultrasonography (CDU) were applied in all cases. In 73 cases, the final diagnosis was established by surgery and in 157 cases by follow-up. MRI was performed in 48 cases. Ultrasonography was the initial imaging modality in all cases. It provided detailed anatomic information with high sensitivity and accuracy in cases of torsion, inflammation, varicocele and trauma. In cases of tumor, US showed the presence of the mass in all cases, while it additionally revealed certain characteristic features of tissue constitution and blood supply. In most cases, differentiation between various types of tumors or differentiation between malignant and benign lesions was impossible. MRI, besides the detailed anatomic imaging, also provided a certain degree of tissue specificity. MRI could help in the detection and staging of penile cancer and in the evaluation of testicular and scrotal masses, especially when a diagnostic dilemma occurred on ultrasonographic examination. Ultrasonography, combining gray scale and color techniques, is irreplaceable in the diagnostic work-up of scrotal and penile masses, while MRI can serve as a problem solving diagnostic modality.
引用
收藏
页码:382 / 391
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Penile biometry on prenatal magnetic resonance imaging
    Nemec, S. F.
    Nemec, U.
    Weber, M.
    Brugger, P. C.
    Bettelheim, D.
    Rotmensch, S.
    Krestan, C. R.
    Rimoin, D. L.
    Graham, J. M., Jr.
    Prayer, D.
    ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 39 (03) : 330 - 335
  • [33] Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy between ultrasound elastography and magnetic resonance imaging for breast masses
    Cheng, Rong
    Li, Jing
    Ji, Li
    Liu, Huining
    Zhu, Limin
    EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE, 2018, 15 (03) : 2519 - 2524
  • [34] Orbital Cavernous Hemangiomas: Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Evaluation
    Diamantopoulou, A.
    Damianidis, Ch.
    Kyriakou, V.
    Kotziamani, N.
    Emmanouilidou, M.
    Goutsaridou, F.
    Tsitouridis, I.
    NEURORADIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2010, 23 (01): : 99 - 108
  • [35] Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of Penile Abscess
    Yamada, Kentaro
    Horikawa, Masahiro
    Shinmoto, Hiroshi
    UROLOGY, 2019, 131 : E5 - E6
  • [36] MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING OF PENILE RHABDOMYOSARCOMA
    GANESAN, GS
    CORY, D
    MITCHELL, ME
    JONES, JA
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 1992, 65 (770): : 175 - 178
  • [37] Classification of asymptomatic adnexal masses by ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography
    Grab, D
    Flock, F
    Stöhr, I
    Nüssle, K
    Rieber, A
    Fenchel, S
    Brambs, HJ
    Reske, SN
    Kreienberg, R
    GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2000, 77 (03) : 454 - 459
  • [38] IMAGING OF OVARIAN MASSES - MAGNETIC-RESONANCE-IMAGING
    SCOUTT, LM
    MCCARTHY, SM
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1991, 34 (02): : 443 - 451
  • [39] Magnetic resonance evaluation of adnexal masses
    Guerra, A.
    Cunha, T. M.
    Felix, A.
    ACTA RADIOLOGICA, 2008, 49 (06) : 700 - 709
  • [40] Cardiac and paracardiac masses - Current opinion on diagnostic evaluation by magnetic resonance imaging
    Hoffmann, U
    Globits, S
    Frank, H
    EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 1998, 19 (04) : 553 - 563