Back to Journals » Research and Reports in Urology » Volume 12

Multimodality Radiological Pictorial Review of Testicular Carcinoma: From Initial Staging to Restaging

Authors Revels JW , Wang SS, Gangadhar K, Ali A, Ali AA, Lee JH

Received 17 April 2020

Accepted for publication 27 July 2020

Published 1 December 2020 Volume 2020:12 Pages 599—613

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S257243

Checked for plagiarism Yes

Review by Single anonymous peer review

Peer reviewer comments 3

Editor who approved publication: Dr Jan Colli



Jonathan W Revels,1 Sherry S Wang,2 Kiran Gangadhar,3 Arafat Ali,4 Al-Amin Ali,5 Jean H Lee3

1Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA; 2Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake, UT, USA; 3Department of Radiology, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA; 4Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA; 5Department of Literature, Science, and Arts, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Correspondence: Jonathan W Revels Email [email protected]

Abstract: With an overall 5-year survival rate > 95%, patients with testicular cancer have a great prognosis. Although initial diagnosis is based on clinical examination, imaging does play a significant role in the diagnosis and prognosis of testicular cancer, which are dependent on tumor burden and staging. Successful treatment requires appropriate disease assessment throughout a patient’s treatment: evaluating treatment response, restaging, and monitoring for disease recurrence after treatment completion. Ultrasound is usually the initial screening modality for painless testicular masses, and computedtomography (CT) the most commonly used for staging and restaging. However, with regard to seminomas, positron-emission tomography (PET) combined with CT is slowly taking priority. With regard to nonseminomatous germ-cell tumors, PET-CT has not proven to be completely effective, due to a high number of false-negative results. The purpose of this paper is to provide radiologists with a pictorial review of testicular carcinoma from initial staging through posttreatment follow-up.

Keywords: testicular, oncology, computed tomography, positron-emission tomography

Introduction

Testicular cancer is the most common tumor among young adult males, and accounts for 8.2% of all cancer in men aged 15–39 years.1,2 In 2017, a National Cancer Institute Physician Data Query cancer-information summary about testicular cancer reported the incidence of new cases to be 8,850, and the lifetime risk of developing testicular cancer is a reported 0.4%.3,4 Risk factors for testicular cancer include cryptorchidism (Figure 1), family or personal history of testicular cancer, ethnicity, infertility, testicular dysgenesis. and prenatal exposure.5,6 Such factors as marijuana exposure, vasectomy, trauma, mumps, and HIV infection continue to be investigated. With the advent of improved management, survival and life expectancy of patients with testicular cancer is quite good, with reported life expectancy nearly equal to those without a diagnosis of testicular cancer.4 Particularly, survival rates for testicular germ-cell tumors (GCTs) are nearly 100% for seminomas and 91% for nonseminomas.4,7

Figure 1 Testicular mass in cryptorchid testis: homogeneous diffuse intratesticular mass lesion with surrounding internal vascularity.

Pathologically, GCTs are broadly divided into seminomas, which resemble primordial GCs, and nonseminomas, which are either undifferentiated or differentiated, exhibiting a degree of embryonic or extraembryonic patterning (including yolk-sac tumors, teratomas, embryonal cell tumors, and choriocarcinoma). Testicular cancer is classified as per the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines (Table 1).8 A complete description of the pathogenesis of testicular tumors is beyond the scope of this radiological review. Rather, the purpose of this manuscript is to provide an updated overview of the staging of testicular cancer with an emphasis on the radiological perspective.

Table 1 WHO Histological Classification of Testis Tumors

Diagnosis

Although clinical history and examination of testicular masses remain the cornerstone of diagnosis, imaging using ultrasound (US) examination of the scrotum plays a crucial role in initial diagnosis of tumors. Testicular sonography is also helpful in assessing patients presenting with metastatic disease in whom an occult primary tumor of the testis is suspected or for synchronous tumors in the contralateral testis.8,9 Heller et al observed an eightfold-increased prevalence of primary testicular neoplasms in patients with microlithiasis over those without, as well as an increased prevalence of GCTs, particularly pure seminomas (Figure 2).10 However, US follow-up is of questionable significance, and some studies have clearly expressed doubts that follow-up US screening for patients with testicular microlithiasis would substantially change outcomes.11

Figure 2 Testicular mass in the background of microlithiasis: homogeneous large oval hypoechoic intratesticular mass lesion with surrounding microlithiasis.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be a valuable problem-solving modality for the morphological evaluation and characterization of scrotal masses in patients with inconclusive and inconsistent sonographic features, and may improve differentiation between intratesticular and extratesticular masses.12 Dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI may be used to differentiate benign from malignant intratesticular mass lesions by analyzing contrast enhancement.13 At present, the role of positron-emission tomography (PET) is limited in the initial evaluation of testicular tumors. Current testicular cancer–staging algorithms rely primarily on anatomic features of primary and metastatic disease (eg, enlarged lymph nodes, pulmonary nodules, bone lesions), as opposed to the functional information provided by PET. A few studies have demonstrated a potential benefit of PET to alter a patient’s initial testicular cancer staging — upstage or downstage — which could mean that one day this modality will have a more active role in initial staging.14

Initial Tumor–Node–Metastasis Staging and Serology

The diagnosis of testicular cancer is commonly based on histopathology after radical orchiectomy. Use of noninvasive imaging allows for clinical staging of testicular cancer before orchiectomy (Table 2). Staging is crucial, as the treatment approach is based on the staging/clinical classification of the malignancy.15 Serum tumor markers can assist in appropriate diagnosis, most notably a histopathologically reported pure seminoma in the presence of elevated serum AFP: as AFP should not be elevated in a pure seminoma, the diagnosis is more likely a nonseminomatous GCT with at least some component of yolk-sac tumor. In addition to tumor markers, staging also involves assessment of metastatic disease: nodal and distant metastatic sites, including the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. With normal tumor markers and no evidence of metastases on imaging, patients are classified as having clinical stage I disease. Bone and brain metastatic evaluation are considered if related symptoms are present.16 TNM international classification criteria are used for staging of the tumor.17,18 Using TNM classification (Tables 3 and 4), patients can be staged based on the AJCC classification (Tables 5 and 6).19 AJCC classification is often used to determine prognosis and patient survival, which is also provided by the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group classification (Table 7).20

Table 2 Recommended Initial Serological and Radiological Examinations for Staging of Testicular Cancer 

Table 3 TNM classification (AJCC eighth edition, 2017)

Table 4 TNM Classification for Testicular Cancer Per Serum Testicular Tumor–Marker Level

Table 5 Stage Groupings of Testicular Germ-Cell Tumors

Table 6 AJCC Staging classification

Table 7 Prognostic-Based Staging System for Metastatic Germ-Cell Cancer

Tumor Staging (T Stage)

In sum, 70%–80% will present with disease confined to the testis (stage I). The primary imaging modality is US scanning of the scrotum, which has sensitivity approaching 100% in experienced hands. Recently, use of US elastography in providing additional information to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions has been evaluated by many studies.21 However, this technique can only be complementary to conventional US, but not an imaging modality of choice, because of overlapping imaging findings in lesions <10 mm in size. The majority (>95%) of intratesticular lesions are malignant, typically present as a painless mass, and usually result in orchiectomy.22

On US, seminomas are typically round, homogeneous, hypoechoic tumors with increased vascularity compared to background testicular parenchyma (Figure 3). In certain cases, seminoma can replace testicular parenchyma, which can make it difficult to differentiate from other infiltrative masses of the testis, such as leukemia and lymphoma. This appearance is in contrast to the heterogeneity of nonseminomatous GCTs (NSGCTs) related to hemorrhage and necrosis with cystic degeneration and calcifications (Figure 4).23,24 Two factors associated with poor prognosis include rete-testis invasion and tumors ≥4 cm.25 Color Doppler US may be helpful in prepubertal boys when the gray-scale findings of the mass are subtle, and may help identify an isoechoic mass.26 US elastography typically demonstrates increased parenchymal “stiffness”; however, the role of US elastography is still questionable in characterization of testicular lesions.27 Difficulties may arise in differentiating orchitis from tumors and in establishing definitive diagnoses for small lesions on regular US. Usually, surgical exploration through the groin and open biopsy of the testis using the Chevassu technique along with intraoperative US localization is necessary to diagnose and stage the tumor appropriately.

Figure 3 Seminoma: homogeneous large oval intratesticular mass lesion with internal hypervascularity.

Figure 4 Nonseminomatous GCT: heterogeneous large oval intratesticular mass lesion with internal cystic and calcific changes. The mass also show internal hypervascularity.

MRI is an efficient diagnostic tool for the evaluation of testicular masses. It is accurate in the preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant intratesticular masses. MRI of the testes seems to be more efficient than US for detecting local extent of the tumor: involvement of the tunica albuginea, epididymis, and spermatic cord.28 MRI may also be helpful in differentiating seminomas from NSGCTs, showing better characterization of NSGCTs demonstrating heterogeneous signal and enhancement characteristics caused by necrosis and hemorrhage. However, there may be overlap in the imaging characteristics of seminomas and NSGCTs.29

Lymph-Node Metastases (N Stage)

About 15%–20% will present with disease that has metastasized to abdominal lymph nodes, constituting stage II disease. CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis are the recommended method for staging for infradiaphragmatic lymph nodes (Figure 5). Lymphatics are a major route of cancer spread for testicular malignancies, because the tunica albuginea forms a barrier against local extension. Retroperitoneal spread is felt to be the result of embryological migration of the testis through the retroperitoneum, where it acquires drainage from the lymphatics adjacent to the aorta and inferior vena cava.30 As per the literature, about 15%–20% of patients with stage I seminoma can have subclinical metastatic disease, usually in the retroperitoneum, and relapse after orchiectomy alone.31

Figure 5 Retroperitoneal metastasis. (A) Left para-aortic lymph node on a patient with left-sided testicular mass. (B) Bilateral large heterogeneous retroperitoneal lymph nodes.

While CT is the standard of care for locating the presence of lymphadenopathy or retroperitoneal masses, its false-negative rates have been reported to be as high as 30%–59%.32,33 A pitfall of CT is that inflammatory reactive lymph nodes cannot be differentiated from those that are enlarged secondarily to malignant disease.34 Lymph-node involvement is usually limited to the site of the primary tumor, and contralateral nodal involvement is usually present only in the presence of advanced disease.35 Lymph nodes >1 cm are suspicious for metastasis, especially if they are located in the renal hilar regions or the aortocaval areas. Various studies have established the accuracy of CT in detecting metastatic retroperitoneal lymph nodes, with sensitivity of 65%–96% and specificity of 81%–100%.36,37 On CT, retroperitoneal spread will present as enlarged lymph nodes, which could be homogeneous or heterogeneous, depending on cystic or necrotic degeneration. These lymph nodes can be bulky and lobulated, showing conglomeration, and can be encasing the retroperitoneal vasculature.

A recent meta-analysis study by Zhao et al concluded that PET-CT may be an accurate noninvasive and useful diagnostic tool for patients with testicular cancer (Figure 6).38 A negative PET-CT result eliminates viability in large lesions and helps to avoid unnecessary surgery. In addition, PET-CT demonstrates good specificity, being a potentially useful tool if combined with other imaging methods. Another study by the National Cancer Research Institute Testis Cancer Clinical Studies Group evaluated the performance of PET-CT in nodal staging of testicular cancers with good prognosis, chemotherapy being offered to PET-CT–positive patients, and monitoring of PET-CT–negative patients.39 The sensitivity of PET-CT does not at present seem to be sufficient to detect lymph-node micrometastases or single out patients with a low risk of recurrence, and additional evidence is needed in order to support its use in initial staging of testicular cancer.40 However, PET-CT may still play a role in deciding between chemotherapy or surgery for the initial management of retroperitoneal masses by using metabolic activity as one additional criterion.41

Figure 6 Distant lymph-node metastases. (A) Chest CT soft-tissue window showing subcarinal mediastinal lymphadenopathy with corresponding PET-CT. (B) Increased FDG avidity. (C) Left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy in axial CT with soft-tissue window settings.

Distant Metastases (M Stage)

The M1 stage consists of visceral metastatic and supradiaphragmatic lymph-node involvement. In testicular malignancies, nodal involvement of the inguinal, external iliac, and pelvic nodes is usually considered distant spread. Hematogeneous metastasis usually includes pulmonary metastases (can show a “cannonball” appearance as well), and can also metastasize to the liver, brain, or bone to a lesser extent. Other rare sites of metastasis include the peritoneum, kidneys, and spleen, and are more frequently observed at the time of relapse. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis is currently the most precise and rapid imaging method for exploring the entire trunk, looking for metastases in the lungs and other target organs.42 CT of the thorax is most often preferred over chest X-rays.43 It is uncommon to observe metastases in the lung and posterior mediastinum without concomitant retroperitoneal disease (Figures 8 and 9).44

Brain MRI may be advocated in addition to the chest/abdomen/pelvis CT scan if the patient has pertinent clinical symptoms or for testicular tumors with a poor prognosis (Figure 10). Brain metastases are most common with choriocarcinoma, which is also the most common cause of hemorrhagic pulmonary metastases.45 GCT metastases may have histological characteristics that are different from those of the primary testicular tumor, indicating the totipotential nature of the GCs.46 Spinal MRI may also be proposed when vertebral metastasis has been shown on the CT scan. Bone scintigraphy using technetium-99m–labelled phosphate derivatives can be recommended in patients when bone metastasis is suspected.18 Evaluation by PET-CT is again not currently indicated in any initial staging of testicular cancer.40

MRI has also been recommended in the staging of testicular tumors in special circumstances: patients with iodinated contrast is contraindicated or in cases where radiation exposure should be limited. In these instances, MRI sensitivity and specificity results have been shown to be similar to CT.47 The disadvantages of MRI are longer examination times, high cost, artifacts, and low availability (Figure 7). MRI with lymphotrophic nanoparticles has been shown to be an effective method for evaluating lymph nodes in different cancers.48 The role of MRI with lymphotrophic nanoparticles still needs larger study designs to be able to be accommodated in regular clinical practice.

Figure 7 Use of MRI for retroperitoneal spread. Retrocrural heterogeneous T2 intermediate signal intensity LN on right side.

Figure 8 Retroperitoneal metastasis teratoma. (A) Large heterogeneous retroperitoneal mass lesion with internal necrotic and cystic contents. (B) Retroperitoneal spread with vascular invasion involving iliac veins and IVC.

Figure 9 Pulmonary metastases. Same patient as Figure 8. (A) Chest radiograph showing multiple pulmonary masses and nodules predominantly in bilateral mid-zones. (B) Chest CT lung window settings showing multiple lung nodules in right-middle and left-upper lobes.

Figure 10 Brain metastases of NSGCT with a patient presenting with headaches. (A) Sagittal T1-weighted postcontrast images showing intra-axial heterogeneous enhancing mass lesion in right occipital region. (B) Axial T2WI Large intra-axial heterogeneous mass lesion with surrounding mass effect and edema, also showing internal darkT2 foci, which could represent hemorrhagic components.

Figure 11 Bone metastases of NSGCT in a patient presenting with seminoma and PET-avid osseous metastasis. (A) Pelvic radiography showing geographic lytic lesion involving right superior pubic ramus. (B and C) Axial CT of pelvis showing geographic mass lesion with soft-tissue component involving superior pubic ramus with corresponding increased FDG avidity.

Figure 12 Use of FDG-PETCT in restaging. (A and B) Patient with seminoma showing mediastinal lymphadenopathy with increased FDG avidity. (C and D) Patient with NSGCT showing mildly hypermetabolic retroperitoneal lymph nodes. In both cases, FDG-PET/CT was used for treatment-response monitoring.

Serological Tumor Markers

In testicular GCTs, serum concentrations of α-fetoprotein (AFP), human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) are imperative in screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment monitoring, and surveillance. However, different types of GCT have different tumor-marker profiles, as well as pure form or mixed type. Patients with testicular GCT will have elevated tumor markers in 51% of cases: increased levels of AFP are associated with yolk-sac tumors, and elevated β-hCG is found in cases of choriocarcinoma. LDH is reportedly a less informative tumor marker.49,51 Tumor markers also offer a means of patient follow-up and continue to yield information regarding response and ongoing prognosis.52

In cases of seminomatous testicular tumors, LDH may be elevated in 80% of patients, but this tumor marker can also be elevated in up to 60% of NSGCTs.53 Elevated LDH may be seen, and correlates with tumor burden, growth rate, cellular proliferation, and advanced disease. Placental alkaline phosphatase is another tumor marker that may be elevated in seminomas, but may also be falsely elevated in smokers.25 Elevated β-hCG can be seen in up to 20% of cases of advanced seminomatous disease.54 Testicular choriocarcinoma very often has elevated serum β-hCG levels that are produced by tumor syncytiotrophoblasts. Therefore, β-hCG is important in monitoring treatment response and recurrence.54 Yolk-sac tumors have elevated AFP levels in 90% of cases, which usually decrease 5 days after orchiectomy.54 If AFP levels do not decrease, this raises concern for possible residual primary disease or metastases that were not detected on the initial staging evaluation.54

Testicular embryonal-cell tumors demonstrate elevated AFP and β-hCG; however, in pure embryonal cell tumors these tumor markers are elevated to a lesser extent. Levels of these tumor markers are proportional to tumor burden, and elevation is a sign of poor prognosis.54 Pure testicular teratomas do not have APF elevation; however, elevated AFP can be seen in tumors with mucinous or hepatoid differentiation. The lack of tumor-marker elevation at initial staging can pose a challenge in treatment monitoring/surveillance, as confidence in a disease-free state becomes exclusively reliant on radiological changes: new or growing soft tissue at the site of resection, lymphadenopathy, or new distant lesions suggestive of metastases.

Restaging and Surveillance

Of all seminomas, 75% are confined to the testicle at the time of clinical presentation, and a complete cure is thus achieved with a thorough radical orchiectomy. In patients with nonmetastatic stage I seminoma, the risk of subsequent para-aortic lymp- node relapse is 15%–20%, but adjuvant use of either chemotherapy or radiotherapy reduces the risk of recurrence to <1%.55 Patients declining primary chemotherapy may be offered primary nerve–sparing retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection with adjuvant chemotherapy. Primary chemotherapy and primary retroperitoneal lymph-node dissection have comparable outcomes and a cure rate of almost 90% for stage II disease.56 Chemotherapy with radiotherapy appears to reduce the relapse rate in stage II seminoma with minimal additional toxicity.57

Imaging and tumor markers are the two import aspects of restaging and surveillance of testicular tumors. Depending on the stage of the tumor, follow-up guidelines vary based on the 2011 European Association of Urology guidelines (Tables 8, 10).58 The European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of GC Cancer guidelines state that radiological restaging must be performed after completion of first-line chemotherapy; however, in patients with slow tumor-marker decline or clinical evidence of progression, restaging should be performed earlier, because immediate modification of the first-line treatment strategy may be required.59

Table 8 Stage I Nonseminoma Testicular Cancer: Minimum Follow-up Schedules for Surveillance and Following Retroperitoneal Lymph-Node Dissection or Adjuvant Chemotherapy

Table 9 Stage I Seminoma Testicular Cancer: Minimum Follow-up Schedule for Postorchiectomy Surveillance, Radiotherapy, or Chemotherapy

Table 10 Advanced (Metastatic) Testicular Cancer: Minimum Follow-up Schedule  

CT of chest/abdomen/pelvis is the usual method for assessing response of disease to treatment. Size reduction of metastases is the primary criterion for assessing tumor response to therapy, though institutional preferences may vary based on clinical trial guidelines. In addition to size change, CT can help assess residual postchemotherapy tissue characteristics, eg, development of cystic and fatty features at sites of previous metastases have been associated with mature differentiated teratomas and may indicate the need for surgical removal.60,62 Seminoma primary and metastatic sites may demonstrate necrosis, fibrosis, and/or calcifications.63 Treated lung metastases may demonstrate cavitation that may initially appear ominous, then subsequently progress to more benign–appearing fibrosis.64 Patients with large-volume post–neoadjuvant therapy disease may benefit from the use of CT and MRI for planning an operative approach.65

Follow-up of metastatic lymphadenopathy with CT demonstrates similar features to response and recurrence at primary and other metastatic sites, eg, treatment response of decreased size and necrosis/fibrosis, and progression or recurrence of lymphadenopathy growth. Studies have emphasized the usefulness of PET-CT in the follow-up evaluation of metastatic lymphadenopathy based on maximum systemic uptake values.41 In patients with pure seminomas and postchemotherapy residual disease >3 cm, PET-CT can be considered (Figures 11 and 12), and PET-positive masses should be considered for biopsy, selective surgical resection, or close surveillance.66 It should be noted that FDG-PET is suboptimal at distinguishing fibrosis from teratomas, as both have low uptake values; however, Sugawara et alsuggested the utility of PET kinetic-rate constants to differentiate mature teratomas from fibrosis and necrosis.67 PET-CT may also demonstrate false-positive (nonmalignant) hypermetabolic activity as a result of posttreatment inflammation.38,68 For this reason, it might be prudent to perform PET-CT before chemotherapy or have an interval of no sooner than 4 weeks after chemotherapy.69

Treatment and Treatment Complications

Standard-of-care medical therapy for patients with low-risk GCTs includes three cycles of bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin (BEP) or four cycles of EP.70 Patients with advanced disease typically receive four cycles of BEP or etoposide, ifosfamide, and cisplatin.71,72 Toxicities associated with these chemotherapeutic agents have been well described in the literature.70,73,76 Bleomycin is associated with immunomediated pulmonary toxicity, eventually leading to fibrosis. With dose as the sole risk factor, bleomycin-induced pulmonary toxicity has an incidence of 8.5%.73 Poor renal function and high cumulative dose are the best-established risk factors, and their presence increases the probability of developing pulmonary toxicity. In fact, incidence of fatal pulmonary fibrosis has been reported as high as 10% for patients receiving high cumulative doses.70,73 High-resolution CT findings of bleomycin-induced pulmonary toxicity vary by histological patterns of lung injury. Injury patterns vary from aspecific interstitial pneumonia, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, and diffuse alveolar damage patterns. Cisplatin-induced venous thromboembolism and cardiovascular disease is another common chemotherapy-induced toxicity encountered in the treatment of testicular cancer.70,76 Endothelial injury and increased circulating prothrombotic factors can lead to thrombosis.76 On cardiovascular or abdominopelvic imaging, the presence of new or increasing calcified or uncalcified atherosclerotic plaques can suggest the presence of cisplatin-induced vascular toxicity.

Conclusion

Testicular cancer is considered almost curable in low tumor–burden stages. In addition to tumormarkers, multimodality-imaging evaluation plays a pivotal role in patient management. While US and CT are mainly used as imaging modalities for initial staging, PET-CT and MRI can be used in restaging in special circumstances. Imaging is necessary for tumor response to treatment, restaging, and surveillance. It is essential that the clinical team has thorough knowledge of imaging modalities to be used in each stage of the disease, and radiologists should also guide clinicians to order a study depending on the circumstancs of the patient.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest for this work.

References

1. Bray F, Richiardi L, Ekbom A, Pukkala E, Cuninkova M, Moller H. Trends in testicular cancer incidence and mortality in 22 European countries: continuing increases in incidence and declines in mortality. Int J Cancer. 2006;118:3099–3111. doi:10.1002/ijc.21747

2. Keegan TH, Ries LA, Barr RD, et al. Comparison of cancer survival trends in the United States of adolescents and young adults with those in children and older adults. Cancer. 2016;122:1009–1016. doi:10.1002/cncr.29869

3. Board PDQATE. Testicular cancer treatment (PDQ(R)): health Professional version. In: PDQ Cancer Information Summaries. Bethesda (MD): National Cancer Institute (US); 2002.

4. Ehrlich Y, Margel D, Lubin MA, Baniel J. Advances in the treatment of testicular cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2015;4:381–390. doi:10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.06.02

5. Richiardi L, Pettersson A, Akre O. Genetic and environmental risk factors for testicular cancer. Int J Androl. 2007;30:230–240; discussion 240–231. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2007.00760.x

6. Cook MB, Akre O, Forman D, Madigan MP, Richiardi L, McGlynn KA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of perinatal variables in relation to the risk of testicular cancer–experiences of the mother. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38:1532–1542. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp287

7. Chien FL, Schwartz SM, Johnson RH. Increase in testicular germ cell tumor incidence among Hispanic adolescents and young adults in the United States. Cancer. 2014;120:2728–2734. doi:10.1002/cncr.28684

8. Williamson SR, Delahunt B, Magi-Galluzzi C, et al. The World Health Organization 2016 classification of testicular germ cell tumors: a review and update from the International Society of Urological Pathology Testis Consultation Panel. Histopathology. 2017;70:335–346. doi:10.1111/his.13102

9. Sohaib SA, Koh DM, Husband JE. The role of imaging in the diagnosis, staging, and management of testicular cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:387–395. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2758

10. Heller HT, Oliff MC, Doubilet PM, O’Leary MP, Benson CB. Testicular microlithiasis: prevalence and association with primary testicular neoplasm. J Clin Ultrasound. 2014;42:423–426. doi:10.1002/jcu.22144

11. Cast JE, Nelson WM, Early AS, et al. Testicular microlithiasis: prevalence and tumor risk in a population referred for scrotal sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1703–1706. doi:10.2214/ajr.175.6.1751703

12. Muglia V, Tucci S, Elias J, Trad CS, Bilbey J, Cooperberg PL. Magnetic resonance imaging of scrotal diseases: when it makes the difference. Urology. 2002;59:419–423. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(01)01579-5

13. Tsili AC, Argyropoulou MI, Astrakas LG, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI for characterizing intratesticular mass lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:578–585. doi:10.2214/AJR.12.9064

14. Thomas KL, Jeong D, Montilla-Soler J, Feuerlein S. The role of diagnostic imaging in the primary testicular cancer: initial staging, response assessment and surveillance. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:S3–s13. doi:10.21037/tau.2019.07.01

15. Moul JW. Timely diagnosis of testicular cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34:109–117. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2007.02.003

16. Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F, et al. Guidelines on testicular cancer. Eur Urol. 2005;48:885–894. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.019

17. Schmoll HJ, Souchon R, Krege S, et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1377–1399. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdh301

18. Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R, et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol. 2008;53:478–496. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.024

19. Amin M, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Springer International Publishing: American Joint Commission on Cancer;2017.

20. International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group. International germ cell consensus classification: a prognostic factor-based staging system for metastatic germ cell cancers. J Clin Oncol. 1997;15:594–603. doi:10.1200/JCO.1997.15.2.594

21. Aigner F, De Zordo T, Pallwein-Prettner L, et al. Real-time sonoelastography for the evaluation of testicular lesions. Radiology. 2012;263:584–589. doi:10.1148/radiol.12111732

22. Sung EK, Setty BN, Castro-Aragon I. Sonography of the pediatric scrotum: emphasis on the Ts–torsion, trauma, and tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198:996–1003. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.8034

23. Woodward PJ, Sohaey R, O’Donoghue MJ, Green DE. From the archives of the AFIP: tumors and tumorlike lesions of the testis: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2002;22:189–216. doi:10.1148/radiographics.22.1.g02ja14189

24. Schwerk WB, Schwerk WN, Rodeck G. Testicular tumors: prospective analysis of real-time US patterns and abdominal staging. Radiology. 1987;164:369–374. doi:10.1148/radiology.164.2.3299487

25. Vasdev N, Moon A, Thorpe AC. Classification, epidemiology and therapies for testicular germ cell tumors. Int J Dev Biol. 2013;57:133–139. doi:10.1387/ijdb.130031nv

26. Luker GD, Siegel MJ. Pediatric testicular tumors: evaluation with gray-scale and color Doppler US. Radiology. 1994;191:561–564. doi:10.1148/radiology.191.2.8153341

27. Cosgrove D, Piscaglia F, Bamber J, et al. EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical use of ultrasound elastography. Part 2: clinical applications. Ultraschall Med. 2013;34:238–253. doi:10.1055/s-0033-1335375

28. Tsili AC, Argyropoulou MI, Giannakis D, Sofikitis N, Tsampoulas K. MRI in the characterization and local staging of testicular neoplasms. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:682–689. doi:10.2214/AJR.09.3256

29. Aganovic L, Cassidy F. Imaging of the scrotum. Radiol Clin North Am. 2012;50:1145–1165. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2012.08.003

30. Sheinfeld J, McKiernan J, GJ Bosl. Surgery for Testicular Tumors. 2002:2920–2944.

31. Sternberg CN. The management of stage I testis cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 1998;25:435–449. doi:10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70033-1

32. 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. doi:10.1016/S0090-4295(94)80056-1

33. McLeod DG, Weiss RB, Stablein DM, et al. Staging relationships and outcome in early stage testicular cancer: a report from the Testicular Cancer Intergroup Study. J Urol. 1991;145:1178–1183; discussion 1182–1173. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38567-1

34. McMahon CJ, Rofsky NM, Pedrosa I. Lymphatic metastases from pelvic tumors: anatomic classification, characterization, and staging. Radiology. 2010;254:31–46. doi:10.1148/radiol.2541090361

35. Dunnick NR, Javadpour N. Value of CT and lymphography: distinguishing retroperitoneal metastases from nonseminomatous testicular tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136:1093–1099. doi:10.2214/ajr.136.6.1093

36. 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. doi:10.2214/ajr.169.2.9242768

37. Husband JE, Barrett A, Peckham MJ. Evaluation of computed tomography in the management of testicular teratoma. Br J Urol. 1981;53:179–183. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.1981.tb03162.x

38. Zhao JY, Ma XL, Li YY, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 18F-FDG-PET in patients with testicular cancer: a meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:3525–3531. doi:10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.8.3525

39. Huddart RA, O’Doherty MJ, Padhani A, et al. 18fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the prediction of relapse in patients with high-risk, clinical stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors: preliminary report of MRC Trial TE22–the NCRI Testis Tumor Clinical Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:3090–3095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.3831

40. Becherer A. PET in testicular cancer. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;727:225–241.

41. Sterbis JR, Rice KR, Javitt MC, Schenkman NS, Brassell SA. Fusion imaging: a novel staging modality in testis cancer. J Cancer. 2010;1:223–229. doi:10.7150/jca.1.223

42. Brunereau L, Bruyere F, Linassier C, Baulieu JL. The role of imaging in staging and monitoring testicular cancer. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2012;93:310–318. doi:10.1016/j.diii.2012.01.014

43. White PM, Adamson DJ, Howard GC, Wright AR. Imaging of the thorax in the management of germ cell testicular tumors. Clin Radiol. 1999;54:207–211. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(99)91152-2

44. Stephenson AJ, Sheinfeld J. The role of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection in the management of testicular cancer. Urol Oncol. 2004;22:225–233; discussion 234–225. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2004.04.029

45. Seo JB, Im JG, Goo JM, Chung MJ, Kim MY. Atypical pulmonary metastases: spectrum of radiologic findings. Radiographics. 2001;21:403–417. doi:10.1148/radiographics.21.2.g01mr17403

46. Ulbright TM, Hattab EM, Zhang S, et al. Primitive neuroectodermal tumors in patients with testicular germ cell tumors usually resemble pediatric-type central nervous system embryonal neoplasms and lack chromosome 22 rearrangements. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:972–980. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2010.70

47. Hansen J, Jurik AG. Diagnostic value of multislice computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of retroperitoneal spread of testicular cancer: a literature review. Acta Radiol. 2009;50:1064–1070. doi:10.3109/02841850903220371

48. Rockall AG, Sohaib SA, Harisinghani MG, et al. Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:2813–2821. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.07.166

49. Wanderas EH, Fossa SD, Tretli S. Risk of a second germ cell cancer after treatment of a primary germ cell cancer in 2201 Norwegian male patients. Eur J Cancer. 1997;33:244–252. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(96)00459-5

50. Sturgeon CM, Duffy MJ, Stenman UH, et al. National Academy of Clinical Biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines for use of tumor markers in testicular, prostate, colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancers. Clin Chem. 2008;54:e11–e79.

51. von Eyben FE, Liu FJ, Amato RJ, Fritsche HA. Lactate dehydrogenase isoenzyme 1 is the most important LD isoenzyme in patients with testicular germ cell tumor. Acta Oncol. 2000;39:509–517. doi:10.1080/028418600750013438

52. Looijenga LH, Stoop H, Biermann K. Testicular cancer: biology and biomarkers. Virchows Arch. 2014;464:301–313. doi:10.1007/s00428-013-1522-1

53. Leman ES, Gonzalgo ML. Prognostic features and markers for testicular cancer management. Indian J Urol. 2010;26:76–81. doi:10.4103/0970-1591.60450

54. Marshall C, Enzerra M, Rahnemai-Azar AA, Ramaiya NH. Serum tumor markers and testicular germ cell tumors: a primer for radiologists. Abdom Radiol. 2019;44:1083–1090. doi:10.1007/s00261-018-1846-z

55. Chung P, Parker C, Panzarella T, et al. Surveillance in stage I testicular seminoma - risk of late relapse. Can J Urol. 2002;9:1637–1640.

56. Williams SD, Stablein DM, Einhorn LH, et al. Immediate adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation with treatment at relapse in pathological stage II testicular cancer. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1433–1438. doi:10.1056/NEJM198712033172303

57. Patterson H, Norman AR, Mitra SS, et al. Combination carboplatin and radiotherapy in the management of stage II testicular seminoma: comparison with radiotherapy treatment alone. Radiother Oncol. 2001;59:5–11. doi:10.1016/S0167-8140(00)00240-1

58. Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F, et al. EAU guidelines on testicular cancer: 2011 update. Actas Urol Esp. 2012;36:127–145. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2011.06.017

59. Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R, et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol. 2008;53(3):497–513. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.025

60. Lentini JF, Love MB, Ritchie WG, Sedlacek TV. Computed tomography in retroconversion of hepatic metastases from immature ovarian teratoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1986;10:1060–1062. doi:10.1097/00004728-198611000-00037

61. Moskovic E, Jobling T, Fisher C, Wiltshaw E, Parsons C. Retroconversion of immature teratoma of the ovary: CT appearances. Clin Radiol. 1991;43:402–408. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(05)80570-7

62. Connor S, Guest P. Conversion of multiple solid testicular teratoma metastases to fatty and cystic liver masses following chemotherapy: CT evidence of “maturation”. Br J Radiol. 1999;72:1114–1116. doi:10.1259/bjr.72.863.10700831

63. Williams MP, Naik G, Heron CW, Husband JE. Computed tomography of the abdomen in advanced seminoma: response to treatment. Clin Radiol. 1987;38:629–633. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(87)80345-8

64. Charig MJ, Williams MP. Pulmonary lacunae: sequelae of metastases following chemotherapy. Clin Radiol. 1990;42:93–96. doi:10.1016/S0009-9260(05)82075-6

65. Dalal PU, Sohaib SA, Huddart R. Imaging of testicular germ cell tumors. Cancer Imaging. 2006;6:124–134. doi:10.1102/1470-7330.2006.0020

66. Aparicio J. Spanish Germ Cell Cancer G. Positron emission tomography (PET) is not indicated in the postchemotherapy evaluation of advanced non-seminomatous testicular germ cell tumors. Clin Transl Oncol. 2014;16:509–510. doi:10.1007/s12094-014-1161-2

67. Sugawara Y, Zasadny KR, Grossman HB, Francis IR, Clarke MF, Wahl RL. Germ cell tumor: differentiation of viable tumor, mature teratoma, and necrotic tissue with FDG PET and kinetic modeling. Radiology. 1999;211:249–256. doi:10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap16249

68. Lewis DA, Tann M, Kesler K, McCool A, Foster RS, Einhorn LH. Positron emission tomography scans in postchemotherapy seminoma patients with residual masses: a retrospective review from Indiana University Hospital. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:e54–55. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.08.1737

69. 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;22:1034–1039. doi:10.1200/JCO.2004.07.188

70. Feldman DR, Bosl GJ, Sheinfeld J, Motzer RJ. Medical treatment of advanced testicular cancer. JAMA. 2008;299:672–684. doi:10.1001/jama.299.6.672

71. Hinton S, Catalano PJ, Einhorn LH, et al. Cisplatin, etoposide and either bleomycin or ifosfamide in the treatment of disseminated germ cell tumors: final analysis of an intergroup trial. Cancer. 2003;97:1869–1875. doi:10.1002/cncr.11271

72. Wood MJ, Thomas R, Howard SA, Braschi-Amirfarzan M. Imaging of metastatic germ cell tumors in male patients from initial diagnosis to treatment-related toxicities: a primer for radiologists. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214:24–33. doi:10.2214/AJR.19.21623

73. O’Sullivan JM, Huddart RA, Norman AR, Nicholls J, Dearnaley DP, Horwich A. Predicting the risk of bleomycin lung toxicity in patients with germ-cell tumors. Ann Oncol. 2003;14:91–96. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdg020

74. Silva CI, Müller NL. Drug-induced lung diseases: most common reaction patterns and corresponding high-resolution CT manifestations. In: Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI. Vol. 27. WB Saunders; 2006:111–116.

75. Torrisi JM, Schwartz LH, Gollub MJ, Ginsberg MS, Bosl GJ, Hricak H. CT findings of chemotherapy-induced toxicity: what radiologists need to know about the clinical and radiologic manifestations of chemotherapy toxicity. Radiology. 2011;258:41–56. doi:10.1148/radiol.10092129

76. Seng S, Liu Z, Chiu SK, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer treated with Cisplatin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:4416–4426. doi:10.1200/JCO.2012.42.4358

Creative Commons License © 2020 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.