Advertisement

Recent Advances in Imaging of Male Reproductive Tract Malignancies

  • Jurgen J. Fütterer
  • J. Roan Spermon
Part of the Cancer Treatment and Research book series (CTAR, volume 143)

The male reproductive system includes those organs whose function is to accomplish reproduction. This consists of testes, which produce spermatoza and hormones, a series of ducts that store and transport the sperm, seminal vesicles, the prostate and the penis. Cancer of the male reproductive system includes testicular, prostatic and penile neoplasms. Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in men between 15- to 35-years-old, and about 36,000 men are diagnosed with testicular cancer each year. Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy in males. Cancer of the penis is rare in western males, but more common in South East Asia and India. It is most often diagnosed in men over the age of 60 years. This chapter will present an overview of imaging of male reproductive tract malignancies.

Keywords

Prostate Cancer Positron Emission Tomography Germ Cell Tumor Testicular Cancer Peripheral Zone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007; 57(1); 43–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carter HB, Piantadosi S, Isaacs JT. Clinical evidence for and implications of the multi-step development of prostate cancer. J Urol 1990; 143:742–746.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Parkin DM, Bray FI, Devesa SS. Cancer burden in the year 2000. The global picture. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37 Suppl 8:S4–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Konety BR, Bird VY, Deorah S, Dahmoush L. Comparison of the incidence of latent prostate cancer detected at autopsy before and after the prostate specific antigen era. J Urol 2005; 174:1785–1788.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McNeal JE. Normal anatomy of the prostate and changes in benign prostatic hypertrophy and carcinoma. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1988; 9:329–334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coakley FV, Hricak H. Radiologic anatomy of the prostate gland: a clinical approach. Radiol Clin North Am 2000; 38:15–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sattar AA, Noël J-C, Vanderhaeghen J-J, Schulman CC, Wespes E. Prostate capsule: computerized morphometric analysis of its components. Urology 1995; 46:178–181PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenhalgh R, Kirby RS. Anatomy and physiology of the prostate and benign prostatic hyperplasia. Atlas Urol Clin 2002; 10:1–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richie JP, Catalona WJ, Ahmann FR, et al. Effect of patient age on early detection of prostate cancer with serum prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination. Urology 1993; 42:365–374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schröder FH, van der Maas P, Beemsterboer P, et al. Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer. Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998; 90:1817–1823.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Philips TH, Thompson IM. Digital rectal examination and carcinoma of the prostate. Urol Clin North Am. 1991; 18:459–465.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Freedland SJ, Mangold LA, Epstein JI, Partin AW. Biopsy indicator–a predictor of pathologic stage among men with preoperative serum PSA levels of 4.0 ng/mL or less and T1c disease. 2004; 63(5):887–891.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, et al. Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography: criteria for diagnosis of early carcinoma. Radiology 1986; 158:91–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meirelles LR, Billis A, Cotta AC, Nakamura RT, Caserta NM, Prando A. Prostatic atrophy: evidence for a possible role of local ischemia in its pathogenesis. Int Urol Nephrol 2002; 34:345–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ellis WJ, Brawer MK. The significance of isoechoic prostatic carcinoma. J Urol 1994; 152:2304–2307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heijmink SW, van Moerkerk H, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA, Frauscher F, Barentsz JO. A comparison of the diagnostic performance of systematic versus ultrasound-guided biopsies of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2006; 16:927–938.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989; 142:71–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gore JL, Shariat SF, Miles BJ, et al. Optimal combinations of systematic sextant and laterally directed biopsies for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 2001; 165:1554–1559.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scherr DS, Eastham J, Ohori M, Scardino PT. Prostate biopsy techniques and indications: when, where, and how? Semin Urol Oncol 2002; 20:18–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Djavan B, Remzi M, Schulman CC, Marberger M, Zlotta AR. Repeat prostate biopsy: who, how and when?. a review. Eur Urol 2002; 42:93–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilson NM, Masoud AM, Barsoum HB, Refaat MM, Moustafa MI, Kamal TA. Correlation of power Doppler with microvessel density in assessing prostate needle biopsy. Clin Radiol 2004; 59:946–950.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Okihara K, Kojima M, Nakanouchi T, Okada K, Miki T. Transrectal power Doppler imaging in the detection of prostate cancer. BJU Int 2000; 85:1053–1057.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rifkin MD, Sudakoff GS, Alexander AA. Prostate: techniques, results, and potential applications of color Doppler US scanning. Radiology 1993; 186:509–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lavoipierre AM, Snow RM, Frydenberg M, et al. Prostatic cancer: role of color Doppler imaging in transrectal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171:205–210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Frauscher F, Klauser A, Volgger H, et al. Comparison of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted biopsy with conventional systematic biopsy: impact on prostate cancer detection. J Urol 2002; 167:1648–1652.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pelzer A, Bektic J, Berger AP, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 4 to 10 ng/ml using a combined approach of contrast enhanced color Doppler targeted and systematic biopsy. J Urol 2005; 173:1926–1929.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halpern EJ, Ramey JR, Strup SE, Frauscher F, McCue P, Gomella LG. Detection of prostate carcinoma with contrast-enhanced sonography using intermittent harmonic imaging. Cancer 2005; 104:2373–2383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Konig K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A, Lorenz A, Ermert H, Senge T. Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 2005; 174:115–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frauscher F, Klauser A, Koppelstaetter F, Mallouhi A, Horninger W, Zur ND. Real-time elastography for prostate cancer detection: Preliminary experience. Eur Radiol 2004; 14:150.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Prando A, Wallace S. Helical CT of prostate cancer: early clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 175:343–346.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beyersdorff D, Taupitz M, Winkelmann B, et al. Patients with a history of elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and negative transrectal US-guided quadrant or sextant biopsy results: value of MRI. Radiology 2002; 224:701–706.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kurhanewicz J, Vigneron DB, Hricak H, Narayan P, Carroll P, Nelson SJ. Three-dimensional H-1 MR spectroscopic imaging of the in situ human prostate with high (0.24–0.7-cm3) spatial resolution. Radiology 1996; 198:795–805.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heerschap A, Jager GJ, Graaf M van der, et al. In vivo proton MR spectroscopy reveals altered metabolite content in malignant prostate tissue. Anticancer Res 1997; 17:1455–1460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Scheidler J, Hricak H, Vigneron DB, et al. Prostate cancer: localization with three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging–clinicopathologic study. Radiology 1999; 213:473–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 2006; 241:449–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht M, Jager GJ, et al. Fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MRI of urinary bladder and prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10:295–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donahue KM, Weisskoff RM, Parmelee DJ, et al. Dynamic Gd-DTPA enhanced MRI measurement of tissue cell volume fraction. Magn Reson Med 1995; 34:423–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Huisman HJ, Engelbrecht MR, Barentsz JO. Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 13:607–614.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kiessling F, Lichy M, Grobholz R, et al. Detection of prostate carcinomas with T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Value of two-compartment model. Radiologe. 2003; 43: 474–480.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Radiology 2003; 229:248–254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Van Dorsten FA, Van Der Graaf M., Engelbrecht MR, et al. Combined quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and (1) H MR spectroscopic imaging of human prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20:279–287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Shreve PD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose. Radiology 1996; 199:751–756.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Effert PJ, Bares R, Handt S, Wolff JM, Bull U, Jakse G. Metabolic imaging of untreated prostate cancer by positron emission tomography with 18fluorine-labeled deoxyglucose. J Urol 1996; 155:994–998.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Haseman MK, Reed NL, Rosenthal SA. Monoclonal antibody imaging of occult prostate cancer in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen. Positron emission tomography and biopsy correlation. Clin Nucl Med 1996; 21:704–713.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Liu IJ, Zafar MB, Lai YH, Segall GM, Terris MK. Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography studies in diagnosis and staging of clinically organ-confined prostate cancer. Urology 2001; 57:108–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sutinen E, Nurmi M, Roivainen A, et al. Kinetics of [(11) C]choline uptake in prostate cancer: a PET study [correction for study]. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31:317–324.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ross PL, Scardino PT, Kattan MW. A catalog of prostate cancer nomograms. J Urol 2001; 165:1562–1568.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ross PL, Gerigk C, Gonen M, et al. Comparisons of nomograms and urologists’ predictions in prostate cancer. Semin Urol Oncol 2002; 20:82–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Reckwitz T, Potter SR, Partin AW. Prediction of locoregional extension and metastatic disease in prostate cancer: a review. World J Urol 2000; 18:165–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Khan MA, Partin AW. Partin tables: past and present. BJU Int 2003; 92:7–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sobin LH, Wittekind CH. UICC: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 6th edn Wiley-Liss, New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Heiken JP, Forman HP, Brown JJ. Neoplasms of the bladder, prostate and testis. Radiol Clin North Am 1994; 32:81–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, et al. Prostate cancer: comparison of local staging accuracy of pelvic phased-array coil alone versus integrated endorectal-pelvic phased-array coils. Local staging accuracy of prostate cancer using endorectal coil MRI. Eur Radiol. 2007; 17:1055–1065.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    May F, Treumann T, Dettmar P, et al. Limited value of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging and transrectal ultrasonography in the staging of clinically localized prostate cancer. BJU int 2001; 87:66–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sauvain JL, Palasack P, Bourscheid D, et al. Value of power Doppler and 3D vascular sonography as a method for diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2003; 44:21–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Presti JC, Jr., Hricak H, Narayan PA, Shinohara K, White S, Carroll PR. Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 166:103–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ekici S, Ozen H, Agildere M, et al. A comparison of transrectal ultrasonography and endorectal magnetic resonance imaging in the local staging of prostatic carcinoma. BJU Int 1999; 83:796–800.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Garg S, Fortling B, Chadwick D, Robinson MC, Hamdy FC. Staging of prostate cancer using 3-dimensional transrectal ultrasound images: a pilot study. J Urol 1999; 162:1318–1321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Okihara K, Kamoi K, Lane RB, Evans RB, Troncoso P, Babaian RJ. Role of systematic ultrasound-guided staging biopsies in predicting extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle invasion in men with prostate cancer. J Clin Ultrasound 2002; 30:123–131.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Burcombe RJ, Ostler PJ, Ayoub AW, Hoskin PJ. The role of staging CT scans in the treatment of prostate cancer: a retrospective audit. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2000; 12:32–35.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Huncharek M, Muscat J. Serum prostate-specific antigen as a predictor of staging abdominal/pelvic computed tomography in newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Abdom Imaging. 1996; 21:364–367.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tarcan T, Turkeri L, Biren T, Kullu S, Gurmen N, Akdas A. The effectiveness of imaging modalities in clinical staging of localized prostatic carcinoma. Int Urol Nephrol 1996; 28:773–779.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Barbieri A, Monica B, Sebastio N, Incarbone GP, Di Stefano C. Value and limitations of transrectal ultrasonography and computer tomography in preoperative staging of prostate carcinoma]. Acta Biomed Ateneo Parmense 1997; 68:23–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sonnad SS, Langlotz CP, Schwartz JS. Accuracy of MRI for staging prostate cancer: a meta-analysis to examine the effect of technologic change. Acad Radiol 2001; 8:149–157.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2002; 12:2294–2302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wang L, Mullerad M, Chen HN, et al. Prostate cancer: incremental value of endorectal MRI findings for prediction of extracapsular extension. Radiology 2004; 232:133–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Severens JL. Patient selection for magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2001; 40:300–307.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Jager GJ, Severens JL, Thornbury JR, de la Rosette JJ, Ruijs SH, Barentsz JO. Prostate cancer staging: should MRI be used?–A decision analytic approach. Radiology 2000; 215:445–451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Langlotz CP, Schnall MD, Malkowicz SB, Schwartz JS. Cost-effectiveness of endorectal magnetic resonance imaging for the staging of prostate cancer. Acad Radiol 1996; 3 Suppl 1:S24–S27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fütterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging Prostate Cancer with Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Endorectal MRI prior to Radical Prostatectomy: Experienced versus Less Experienced Readers. Radiology 2005; 237:541–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Yu KK, Scheidler J, Hricak H, et al. Prostate cancer: prediction of extracapsular extension with endorectal MRI and three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 1999; 213:481–488.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fütterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MRI–early experience. Radiology 2006; 238:184–191.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Heijmink SWTPJ, Fütterer JJ, Hambrock T, et al. Body Array versus Endorectal coil MRI of Prostate Cancer at 3 Tesla: Comparison of Image Quality, Localization, and Staging Performance with Whole-Mount Section Histopathology as Standard of Reference. Radiology 2007; in press.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lawrentschuk N, Davis ID, Bolton DM, Scott AM. Positron emission tomography and molecular imaging of the prostate: an update. BJU Int. 2006; 97:923–931.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Messing EM, Manola J, Sarosdy M, Wilding G, Crawford ED, Trump D. Immediate hormonal therapy compared with observation after radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymphadenectomy in men with node-positive prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 1999; 341(24):1781–1788.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Walsh PC. Surgery and the reduction of mortality from prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(11):839–840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Magnusson A, Fritjofsson A, Norlen BJ, Wicklund H. The value of computed tomography and ultrasound in assessment of pelvic lymph node metastases in patients with clinically locally confined carcinoma of the prostate. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1988; 22:7–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Flanigan RC, McKay TC, Olson M, Shankey TV, Pyle J, Waters WB. Limited efficacy of preoperative computed tomographic scanning for the evaluation of lymph node metastasis in patients before radical prostatectomy. Urology 1996; 48:428–432.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Borley N, Fabrin K, Sriprasad S, et al. Laparoscopic pelvic lymph node dissection allows significantly more accurate staging in “high-risk” prostate cancer compared to MRI or CT. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2003; 37:382–386.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Oosterhof GO, Witjes JA, Ruijs SJ. Pelvic adenopathy in prostatic and urinary bladder carcinoma: MRI with a three-dimensional TI-weighted magnetization-prepared-rapid gradient-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167:1503–1507.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Harisinghani MG, Barentsz J, Hahn PF, et al. Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:2491–2499.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Weissleder R, Elizondo G, Wittenberg J. et al. Ultrasmall paramagnetic iron oxide: an intravenous contrast agent for assessing lymph nodes with MRI. Radiology 1990; 175:494–498.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Vassallo P, Matei C, Heston WDW, et al. AMI-227-enhanced MR Lymphography: usefulness for differentiating reactive from tumor-bearing lymph nodes. Radiology 1994; 193:501–506.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Heesakkers RA, Fütterer JJ, Hovels AM, et al. Prostate cancer evaluated with ferumoxtran-10-enhanced T2*-weighted MRI at 1.5 and 3.0 T: early experience. Radiology 2006; 239:481–487.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Heicappell R, Muller-Mattheis V, Reinhardt M, et al. Staging of pelvic lymph nodes in neoplasms of the bladder and prostate by positron emission tomography with 2-[(18) F]-2-deoxy-D-glucose. Eur Urol 1999; 36:582–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lentle BC, McGowan DG, Dierich H. Technetium-99M polyphosphate bone scanning in carcinoma of the prostate. Br J Urol 1974; 46:543–548.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Elkin M, Mueller HP. Metastases from cancer of the prostate; autopsy and roentgenological findings. Cancer 1954; 7:1246–1248.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Abuzallouf S, Dayes I, Lukka H. Baseline staging of newly diagnosed prostate cancer: a summary of the literature. J Urol 2004; 171:2122–2127.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Oesterling JE, Martin SK, Bergstralh EJ, Lowe FC. The use of prostate-specific antigen in staging patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. JAMA 1993; 269:57–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Herborn CU, et al. Whole-body MRI: evaluation of patients for metastases. Radiology 2004; 233:139–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Shreve PD, Grossman HB, Gross MD, Wahl RL. Metastatic prostate cancer: initial findings of PET with 2-deoxy-2-[F-18]fluoro-D-glucose. Radiology 1996; 199:751–756.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Garner MJ, Turner MC, Ghadirian P, Krewski D. Epidemiology of testicular cancer: an overview. Int J Cancer. 2005;116(3):331–339.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Comiter CV, Benson CJ, Capelouto CC, et al: Nonpalpable intratesticular masses detected sonographically. J Urol 1995; 154:1367–1369.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2001. Bethesda, MD, 2004. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001. Accessed June 15, 2006.
  95. 95.
    Dalal PU, Sohaib SA, Huddart R. Imaging of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer Imaging 2006; 6:124–134.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Coakley FV, Hricak H, Presti JC Jr. Imaging and management of atypical testicular masses. Urol Clin North Am 1998; 25:375–388.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Hernes EH, Harstad K, Fossa SD. Changing incidence and delay of testicular cancer in southern Norway (1981–1992). Eur Urol 1996; 30:349–357.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Hricak H. Imaging of the scrotum. Textbook and atlas, New York, Raven press, 1995;49–93.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Guthrie JA, Fowler RC. Ultrasound diagnosis of testicular tumors presenting as epididymal disease. Clin Radiol 1992; 46: 397–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Grantham JG, Charboneau JW, James EM, et al. Testicular neoplasms: 29 tumors studied by high-resolution US. Radiology 1985; 157: 775–780.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Senay BA, Stein BS. Testicular neoplasm diagnosed by ultrasound. J Surg Oncol 1986; 32: 110–112PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Rifkin MD, Kurtz AB, Pasto ME, Goldberg BB. Diagnostic capabilities of high-resolution scrotal ultrasonography: prospective evaluation. J Ultrasound Med 1985; 4:13–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Oyen R. Imaging of testicular neoplasms. In: Carcinoma of the kidney and testis, and rare malignancies. Innovations in management. Springer Verlag, 1999;203–210.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Schwerk WB, Schwerk WN, Rodeck G: Testicular tumors: Prospective analysis of real-time US patterns and abdominal staging. Radiology 1987; 164:369–374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Benson CB, Doubilet PM, Richie JP: Sonography of the male genital tract. Am J Roentgenol 1989; 153:705–713.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ciftci AO, Bingol-Kologlu M, Senocak ME, et al. Testicular tumors in children. J Pediatr Surg 2001; 36:1796–1801.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Backus ML, Mack LA, Middleton WD, King BF, Winter TC, True LD. Testicular microlithiasis: imaging appearances and pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 192:781–785.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Peckham MJ, Barrett A, McEwlain TJ, Hendry WF, Raghaven D. Non-seminoma germ cell tumors (malignant teratomas) of the testis. BJU 1981; 53:162–172.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Donohue JP, Zachary JM, Maynard BR. Distribution of nodal metastases in nonseminomatous testis cancer. J Urol 1982; 128:315–320.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Mason MD, Featherstone T, Olliff J, Horwich A. Inguinal and iliac lymph node involvement in germ cell tumors of the testis: implications for radiological investigation and for therapy. Clin Oncol 1991; 3:147–150.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    Siegel MJ: The acute scrotum. Radiol Clin North Am 1997; 35:959–976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Horstman WG, Melson GL, Middleton WD, Andriole GL. Testicular tumors: findings with color Doppler US. Radiology 1992; 185:733–737.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Kundra V. Testicular cancer. Semin Roentgenol 2004; 39:437–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Watanabe Y, Dohke M, Ohkubo K, et al. Scrotal disorders: evaluation of testicular enhancement patterns at dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI. Radiology 2000; 217:219–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Schultz-Lampel D, Bogaert G, Thuroff JW, Schlegel E, Cramer B. MRI for evaluation of scrotal pathology. Urol Res 1991; 19:289–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Cramer BM, Schlegel EA, Thueroff JW. MRI in the differential diagnosis of scrotal and testicular disease. Radiographics. 1991; 11:9–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Albers P, Bender H, Yilmaz H, Schoeneich G, Biersack HJ, Mueller SC. Positron emission tomography in the clinical staging of patients with Stage I and II testicular germ cell tumors. Urology. 1999; 53:808–811.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Muller-Mattheis V, Reinhardt M, Gerharz CD, et al. Positron emission tomography with [18 F]-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (18FDG-PET) in diagnosis of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases of testicular tumors. Urologe A. 1998; 37:609–620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Spermon JR, De Geus-Oei LF, Kiemeney LA, Witjes JA, Oyen WJ. The role of (18) fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography in initial staging and re-staging after chemotherapy for testicular germ cell tumors. BJU Int. 2002; 89:549–556.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Gambhir SS, Czernin J, Schwimmer J, et al. A tabulated summary of the FDG PET literature. J Nucl Med 2001; 42:1S–93SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    De Santis M, Becherer A, Bokemeyer C, et al. 2–18fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is a reliable predictor for viable tumor in postchemotherapy seminoma: an update of the prospective multicentric SEMPET trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):1034–1039.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Donohue JP, Thornhill JA, Foster RS, Rowland RG, Bihrle R. Primary retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in clinical stage A non-seminomatous germ cell testis cancer. Review of the Indiana University experience 1965–1989. Br J Urol. 1993; 71:326–335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Hilton S, Herr HW, Teitcher JB, Begg CB, Castellino RA. CT detection of retroperitoneal lymph node metastases in patients with clinical stage I testicular nonseminomatous germ cell cancer: assessment of size and distribution criteria. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997; 169: 521–525.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Fernandez EB, Moul JW, Foley JP, Colon E, McLeod DG. Retroperitoneal imaging with third and fourth generation computed axial tomography in clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors. Urology 1994; 44:548–552.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    See W.A., Hoxie L. Chest staging in testis cancer patients: imaging modality selection based upon risk assessment as determined by abdominal computerized tomography scan results. J Urol 1993; 150:874–878.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Ellis JH, Bies JR, Kopecky KK, Klatte EC, Rowland RG, Donohue JP. Comparison of NMR and CT imaging in the evaluation of metastatic retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy from testicular carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1984; 8:709–719.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Hogeboom WR, Hoekstra HJ, Mooyaart, EL et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography in the treatment evaluation of retroperitoneal lymph-node metastases of non-seminomatous testicular tumors. Eur J Radiol. 1991; 13:31–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Harisinghani MG, Saksena M, Ross RW, Tabatabaei S, A pilot study of lymphotrophic nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging technique in early stage testicular cancer: a new method for non-invasive lymph node evaluation. Urology. 2005; 66:1066–1071.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Satoh M, Ito A, Kaiho Y, et al. Intraoperative, radio-guided sentinel lymph node mapping in laparoscopic lymph node dissection for Stage I testicular carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 103:2067–2072.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    P Warde, MK Gospodarowicz, T Panzarella, CN Catton Stage I testicular seminoma: results of adjuvant irradiation and surveillance. J Clin Oncol. 1995; 13:2255–2262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Cremerius U, Wildberger JE, Borchers H, et al. Does positron emission tomography using 18-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose improve clinical staging of testicular cancer?–Results of a study in 50 patients. Urology 1999; 54:900–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Hain SF, O’Doherty MJ, Timothy AR, et al. Fluorodeoxyglucose PET in the initial staging of germ cell tumors. Eur J Nucl Med 2000; 27:590–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Flechon A, Bompas E, Biron P, Droz JP. Management of post-chemotherapy residual masses in advanced seminoma. J Urol 2002; 168:1975–1979.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Steyerberg EW, Gerl A, Fossa SD, et al. Validity of predictions of residual retroperitoneal mass histology in nonseminomatous testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16:269–274.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Rustin GJ, Mead GM, Stenning SP, et al. National Cancer Research Institute Testis Cancer Clinical Studies Group. Randomized trial of two or five computed tomography scans in the surveillance of patients with stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors of the testis: Medical Research Council Trial TE08, ISRCTN56475197–the National Cancer Research Institute Testis Cancer Clinical Studies Group. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1310–1315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F, Bokemeyer C, Cohn-Cedermark G, Horwich A, Klepp O, Laguna MP, Pizzocaro G. Guidelines on testicular cancer. Eur Urol 2005; 48:885–894.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jurgen J. Fütterer
    • 1
  • J. Roan Spermon
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNetherlands
  2. 2.Departments of UrologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNetherlands

Personalised recommendations