Testicular microlithiasis: is it significant?

Elastography and diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with testicular microlithiasis, normal testicular tissue, and testicular cancer: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound elastography is increasingly available in clinical practice. Recent studies showed higher velocity stiffness in testicular tumors compared to normal testicles.

PURPOSE

To evaluate ultrasound elastography in combination with the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in testicles. DW can be a useful tool in evaluating testicular malignancies. However, the relationship between velocity stiffness and MRI diffusion is not well established.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We prospectively included 132 patients with testicular microlithiasis (n = 53), or normal testicular tissue (n = 53), or suspected for testicular cancer (n = 26). All 132 patients underwent ultrasonography including shear wave elastography and MRI diffusion coefficient examination of the scrotum.

RESULTS

No clinically relevant difference in velocity stiffness was found between normal and testicles with microlithiasis. There was a significant difference in stiffness between patients with testicular microlithiasis (0.78 m/s), normal testicular tissue (0.77 m/s), and patients with testicular cancer (1.95 m/s) ( P ≤ 0.001). Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference in MRI diffusion values between patients with testicular microlithiasis (0.978 × 10^-3mm²s^-1), normal testicular tissue (0.929 × 10^-3mm²s^-1), and testicular cancers (0.743 × 10^-3mm²s^-1) ( P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients with testicular microlithiasis had no malignant characteristics measured with shear wave elastography or MRI diffusion. MRI diffusion and elastography may be useful to preoperatively differentiate benign from malignant testicular lesions.

Testicular microlithiasis an ultrasound dilemma: survey of opinions regarding significance and management amongst UK ultrasound practitioners

OBJECTIVE

To establish whether there is a consensus regarding the significance of testicular microlithiasis and a strategy for managing patients with this condition, amongst ultrasound practitioners in the UK.

METHODS

An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 1482 members of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS), requesting information from ultrasound practitioners involved in scrotal ultrasound about their interpretation of the risk associated with testicular microlithiasis and their departmental or personal recommendations for managing patients with this condition.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 221 BMUS members. Analysis demonstrated a wide variation in the significance attributed to the discovery of testicular microlithiasis and the risk of subsequent development of testicular germ cell tumours. There was also great variation in strategies for management of patients with testicular microlithiasis, including the need for surveillance ultrasound, amongst ultrasound practitioners regardless of their job description.

CONCLUSION

Lack of consensus shown by this study highlights significant differences across the UK in managing patients with testicular microlithiasis and validates the importance of guidance currently being formulated by the European Society of Urogenital Radiology.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

We believe that this is the first survey to be conducted amongst imaging specialists in the UK regarding testicular microlithiasis and demonstrates that there is currently no uniform practice in managing patients with this condition.