Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thurnher, S.
Right arrow Articles by Filly, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thurnher, S.
Right arrow Articles by Filly, R. A.

Radiology, Vol 167, 631-636, Copyright © 1988 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Imaging the testis: comparison between MR imaging and US

S Thurnher, H Hricak, PR Carroll, RS Pobiel and RA Filly
Department of Radiology, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco 94143.

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.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. C. Tsili, C. Tsampoulas, X. Giannakopoulos, D. Stefanou, Y. Alamanos, N. Sofikitis, and S. C. Efremidis
MRI in the Histologic Characterization of Testicular Neoplasms
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2007; 189(6): W331 - W337.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
W. K. Adham, B. K. Raval, M. C. Uzquiano, and L. B. Lemos
Best Cases from the AFIP: Bilateral Testicular Tumors: Seminoma and Mixed Germ Cell Tumor
RadioGraphics, May 1, 2005; 25(3): 835 - 839.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
E. Kaufman, F. Akiya, E. Foucar, F. Grambort, and K. C. Cartwright
Viralization Due to Leydig Cell Tumor Diagnosis by Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Case Management Report
Clinical Pediatrics, July 1, 1990; 29(7): 414 - 417.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1988 by the Radiological Society of North America.