Newly Diagnosed Palpable Scrotal Abnormality

Variant: 1 Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler scrotum	Usually Appropriate	O
US scrotum	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis (scrotum) without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis (scrotum) without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Nuclear medicine scan scrotum	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler scrotum	Usually Appropriate	O
US scrotum	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis (scrotum) without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis (scrotum) without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Nuclear medicine scan scrotum	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Andrej Lyshchik, MD, PhD^a; Paul Nikolaidis, MD^b; Gaurav Khatri, MD^c; Alberto Diaz De Leon, MD^d; Carl Flink, MD^e; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan, MBBS^f; Rajan T. Gupta, MD^g; Refky Nicola, DO, MSc^h; Jason C. Ojeda, MDⁱ; Phillip M. Pierorazio, MD^j; Andrei S. Purysko, MD^k; Andrew D. Smith, MD, PhD^l; Myles T. Taffel, MD^m; Chadwick L. Wright, MD, PhDⁿ; Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
A. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
B. CT Pelvis

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
C. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
D. MRI Pelvis (Scrotum)

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
E. Nuclear Medicine Scan Scrotum

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
F. US Duplex Doppler Scrotum

Variant 1: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. History of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
G. US Scrotum

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
A. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
B. CT Pelvis

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
C. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
D. MRI Pelvis (Scrotum)

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
E. Nuclear Medicine Scan Scrotum

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
F. US Duplex Doppler Scrotum

Variant 2: Newly diagnosed palpable scrotal abnormality. No history of trauma or infection. Initial imaging.
G. US Scrotum

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Crawford P, Crop JA. Evaluation of scrotal masses. [Review]. Am Fam Physician. 89(9):723-7, 2014 May 01.
2.	Schmoll HJ, Jordan K, Huddart R, et al. Testicular seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 21 Suppl 5:v140-6, 2010 May.
3.	Schmoll HJ, Jordan K, Huddart R, et al. Testicular non-seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 21 Suppl 5:v147-54, 2010 May.
4.	Mittal PK, Abdalla AS, Chatterjee A, et al. Spectrum of Extratesticular and Testicular Pathologic Conditions at Scrotal MR Imaging. [Review]. Radiographics. 38(3):806-830, 2018 May-Jun.
5.	Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F, et al. EAU guidelines on testicular cancer: 2011 update. [Review]. Eur Urol. 60(2):304-19, 2011 Aug.
6.	Goldberg H, Klaassen Z, Chandrasekar T, Fleshner N, Hamilton RJ, Jewett MAS. Germ Cell Testicular Tumors-Contemporary Diagnosis, Staging and Management of Localized and Advanced disease. [Review]. Urology. 125:8-19, 2019 03.
7.	Moch H, Cubilla AL, Humphrey PA, Reuter VE, Ulbright TM. The 2016 WHO Classification of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs-Part A: Renal, Penile, and Testicular Tumours. [Review]. Eur Urol. 70(1):93-105, 2016 07.
8.	Honecker F, Aparicio J, Berney D, et al. ESMO Consensus Conference on testicular germ cell cancer: diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology. 29(8):1658-1686, 2018 08 01.
9.	Wang SQ, Ren FY, Wang JH, et al. Diagnostic value of multislice spiral computed tomography (CT) combined with CT angiography for intra-abdominal undescended testis secondary seminomas. Cancer Imaging. 19(1):24, 2019 May 16.
10.	Aoun F, Slaoui A, Naoum E, et al. Testicular microlithiasis: Systematic review and Clinical guidelines. Prog Urol. 29(10):465-473, 2019 Sep.
11.	Stephenson A, Eggener SE, Bass EB, et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Stage Testicular Cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 202(2):272-281, 2019 08.
12.	Richenberg J, Belfield J, Ramchandani P, et al. Testicular microlithiasis imaging and follow-up: guidelines of the ESUR scrotal imaging subcommittee. European Radiology. 25(2):323-30, 2015 Feb.
13.	Aparicio J, Terrasa J, Duran I, et al. SEOM clinical guidelines for the management of germ cell testicular cancer (2016). Clin Transl Oncol. 18(12):1187-1196, 2016 Dec.
14.	Wang CL, Aryal B, Oto A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Onset of Scrotal Pain-Without Trauma, Without Antecedent Mass. J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S38-S43.
15.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Staging of Testicular Malignancy. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69375/Narrative/.
16.	Lock G, Schmidt C, Helmich F, Stolle E, Dieckmann KP. Early experience with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of testicular masses: a feasibility study. Urology. 77(5):1049-53, 2011 May.
17.	Valentino M, Bertolotto M, Derchi L, et al. Role of contrast enhanced ultrasound in acute scrotal diseases. Eur Radiol. 21(9):1831-40, 2011 Sep.
18.	Moschouris H, Stamatiou K. Re: Lock et al.: Early experience with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of testicular masses: a feasibility study (Urology 2011;77:1049-1053). Urology. 78(2):480-1; author reply 481, 2011 Aug.
19.	Bertolotto M, Derchi LE, Sidhu PS, et al. Acute segmental testicular infarction at contrast-enhanced ultrasound: early features and changes during follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196(4):834-41, 2011 Apr.
20.	Lung PF, Jaffer OS, Sellars ME, Sriprasad S, Kooiman GG, Sidhu PS. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of focal testicular complications secondary to epididymitis. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 199(3):W345-54, 2012 Sep.
21.	Huang DY, Sidhu PS. Focal testicular lesions: colour Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound and tissue elastography as adjuvants to the diagnosis. [Review]. British Journal of Radiology. 85 Spec No 1:S41-53, 2012 Nov.
22.	Lerchbaumer MH, Auer TA, Marticorena GS, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in testicular pathologies: Single-center results. Clinical Hemorheology & Microcirculation. 73(2):347-357, 2019.
23.	Drudi FM, Maghella F, Martino G, et al. Detection of small testicular masses in monorchid patients using US, CPDUS, CEUS and US-guided biopsy. Journal of Ultrasound. 19(1):25-8, 2016 Mar.
24.	Zeng B, Chen F, Qiu S, et al. Application of Quasistatic Ultrasound Elastography for Examination of Scrotal Lesions. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 35(2):253-61, 2016 Feb.
25.	Pedersen MR, Sloth Osther PJ, Nissen HD, Vedsted P, Moller H, Rafaelsen SR. Elastography and diffusion-weighted MRI in patients with testicular microlithiasis, normal testicular tissue, and testicular cancer: an observational study. Acta Radiologica. 60(4):535-541, 2019 Apr.
26.	Konstantatou E, Fang C, Romanos O, et al. Evaluation of Intratesticular Lesions With Strain Elastography Using Strain Ratio and Color Map Visual Grading: Differentiation of Neoplastic and Nonneoplastic Lesions. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 38(1):223-232, 2019 Jan.
27.	Marcon J, Trottmann M, Rubenthaler J, Stief CG, Reiser MF, Clevert DA. Shear wave elastography of the testes in a healthy study collective - Differences in standard values between ARFI and VTIQ techniques. Clinical Hemorheology & Microcirculation. 64(4):721-728, 2016.
28.	Marcon J, Trottmann M, Rubenthaler J, et al. Three-dimensional vs. two-dimensional shear-wave elastography of the testes - preliminary study on a healthy collective. Clinical Hemorheology & Microcirculation. 64(3):447-456, 2016.
29.	Aigner F, De Zordo T, Pallwein-Prettner L, et al. Real-time sonoelastography for the evaluation of testicular lesions. Radiology. 263(2):584-9, 2012 May.
30.	Rocher L, Criton A, Gennisson JL, et al. Characterization of Testicular Masses in Adults: Performance of Combined Quantitative Shear Wave Elastography and Conventional Ultrasound. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 45(3):720-731, 2019 03.
31.	Pastore AL, Palleschi G, Maceroni P, et al. Correlation between semiquantitative sonoelastography and immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of testicular focal lesions. Cancer Imaging. 14:29, 2014 Oct 08.
32.	Rizvi SA, Ahmad I, Siddiqui MA, Zaheer S, Ahmad K. Role of color Doppler ultrasonography in evaluation of scrotal swellings: pattern of disease in 120 patients with review of literature. [Review]. Urology Journal. 8(1):60-5, 2011Winter.
33.	Dudea SM, Ciurea A, Chiorean A, Botar-Jid C. Doppler applications in testicular and scrotal disease. [Review]. Medical Ultrasonography. 12(1):43-51, 2010 Mar.
34.	Schroder C, Lock G, Schmidt C, Loning T, Dieckmann KP. Real-Time Elastography and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Testicular Masses: A Comparative Prospective Study. Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology. 42(8):1807-15, 2016 08.
35.	Montgomery JS, Bloom DA. The diagnosis and management of scrotal masses. [Review]. Med Clin North Am. 95(1):235-44, 2011 Jan.
36.	Weatherspoon K, Polansky S, Catanzano T. Ultrasound Emergencies of the Male Pelvis. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 38(4):327-344, 2017 Aug.
37.	Patel HD, Ramos M, Gupta M, et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Differentiate the Histology of Testicular Masses: A Systematic Review of Studies With Pathologic Confirmation. Urology. 135:4-10, 2020 Jan.
38.	Tsili AC, Argyropoulou MI, Giannakis D, Sofikitis N, Tsampoulas K. MRI in the characterization and local staging of testicular neoplasms. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 194(3):682-9, 2010 Mar.
39.	Tsili AC, Bertolotto M, Turgut AT, et al. MRI of the scrotum: Recommendations of the ESUR Scrotal and Penile Imaging Working Group. [Review]. European Radiology. 28(1):31-43, 2018 Jan.
40.	Tsili AC, Argyropoulou MI, Astrakas LG, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI for characterizing intratesticular mass lesions. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 200(3):578-85, 2013 Mar.
41.	Thomas LJ, Brooks MA, Stephenson AJ. The Role of Imaging in the Diagnosis, Staging, Response to Treatment, and Surveillance of Patients with Germ Cell Tumors of the Testis. [Review]. Urologic Clinics of North America. 46(3):315-331, 2019 Aug.
42.	McDonald MW, Reed AB, Tran PT, Evans LA. Testicular tumor ultrasound characteristics and association with histopathology. Urologia Internationalis. 89(2):196-202, 2012.
43.	Oldenburg J, Fossa SD, Nuver J, et al. Testicular seminoma and non-seminoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 24 Suppl 6:vi125-32, 2013 Oct.
44.	Sommers D, Winter T. Ultrasonography evaluation of scrotal masses. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 52(6):1265-81, 2014 Nov.
45.	Shtricker A, Silver D, Sorin E, et al. The value of testicular ultrasound in the prediction of the type and size of testicular tumors. International Braz J Urol. 41(4):655-60, 2015 Jul-Aug.
46.	Carkaci S, Ozkan E, Lane D, Yang WT. Scrotal sonography revisited. [Review] [56 refs]. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 38(1):21-37, 2010 Jan.
47.	Bertolotto M, Muca M, Curro F, Bucci S, Rocher L, Cova MA. Multiparametric US for scrotal diseases. [Review]. Abdom Radiol. 43(4):899-917, 2018 04.
48.	Dieckmann KP, Frey U, Lock G. Contemporary diagnostic work-up of testicular germ cell tumours. [Review]. Nat Rev Urol. 10(12):703-12, 2013 Dec.
49.	Wasnik AP, Maturen KE, Shah S, Pandya A, Rubin JM, Platt JF. Scrotal pearls and pitfalls: ultrasound findings of benign scrotal lesions. [Review]. Ultrasound Quarterly. 28(4):281-91, 2012 Dec.
50.	Mirochnik B, Bhargava P, Dighe MK, Kanth N. Ultrasound evaluation of scrotal pathology. [Review]. Radiologic Clinics of North America. 50(2):317-32, vi, 2012 Mar.
51.	Philips S, Nagar A, Dighe M, Vikram R, Sunnapwar A, Prasad S. Benign non-cystic scrotal tumors and pseudotumors. [Review]. Acta Radiol. 53(1):102-11, 2012 Feb 01.
52.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.