Objective To analyze the imaging findings and pathological basis of seminoma and improve the understanding and diagnostic accuracy.Methods The imaging findings of seminoma in 67 patients proved by histopathology were analyzed retrospectively.The tumor location,size,contour,periphery,density or signal and contrast enhancement patterns were evaluated,and these were compared with the pathological results.Results All of the 67 cases were male.46 cases were located in testicular,10 cases in the pelvic cavity,6 cases in the peritoneal and retroperitoneal,4 cases in the mediastinum,1 case in the brain.On non-enhanced CT,testicular lesions appeared to be nodular or lobular masses with clear margin.Some cases showed cystic-solid masses.And the solid component was located in the edge of the lesion,and the irregular necrosis areas of low density was located in the center.Fat and calcification component were not found in the mass.After contrast administration,the masses showed heterogeneous enhancement.The thickened and tortuous testicular arteries were seen in 11 cases in arterial phase,and thickened and twisted testicular veins were seen in 9 cases in the venous phase.The imaging findings of the mass at the other location were without features.Conclusion Testicular seminoma has significant characteristics,thickened testicular arteries and/or draining veins on enhanced CT can help the diagnosis.Imaging features of extragonadal primary seminoma are not characteristic.Combined with clinical history and signs,it is possible to improve the diagnostiic accuracy of seminoma.

Objective: To prospectively compare single-shot (SS) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS MUSE) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). Materials and Methods: SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs were obtained from 39 patients with TAO (18 male; mean ± standard deviation: 48.3 ± 13.3 years) and 26 healthy controls (9 male; mean ± standard deviation: 43.0 ± 18.5 years). Two radiologists scored the visual image quality using a 4-point Likert scale. The image quality score, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-tonoise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of extraocular muscles (EOMs) were compared between the two DWIs. Differences in the ADC of EOMs were also evaluated. The performance of discriminating active from inactive TAO was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The correlation between ADC and clinical activity score (CAS) was analyzed using Spearman correlation. Results: Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated significantly higher image quality scores (P < 0.001), a higher SNR and CNR on the lateral rectus muscle (LRM) and medial rectus muscle (MRM) (P < 0.05), and a non-significant difference in the ADC of the LRM and MRM. Active TAO showed higher ADC than inactive TAO and healthy controls with both SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs (P < 0.001). Inactive TAO and healthy controls did not show a significant ADC difference with both DWIs. Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated better discrimination of active from inactive TAO (AUC:0.925 vs. 0.779; P = 0.007). The ADC was significantly correlated with CAS in SS EPI DWI (r = 0.391, P < 0.001) and FOCUS MUSE DWI (r = 0.645, P < 0.001). Conclusion FOCUS MUSE DWI provides better images for evaluating EOMs and better performance in diagnosing active TAO than SS EPI DWI. The application of FOCUS MUSE will facilitate the DWI evaluation of TAO.

Objective: To prospectively compare single-shot (SS) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS MUSE) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). Materials and Methods: SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs were obtained from 39 patients with TAO (18 male; mean ± standard deviation: 48.3 ± 13.3 years) and 26 healthy controls (9 male; mean ± standard deviation: 43.0 ± 18.5 years). Two radiologists scored the visual image quality using a 4-point Likert scale. The image quality score, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-tonoise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of extraocular muscles (EOMs) were compared between the two DWIs. Differences in the ADC of EOMs were also evaluated. The performance of discriminating active from inactive TAO was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The correlation between ADC and clinical activity score (CAS) was analyzed using Spearman correlation. Results: Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated significantly higher image quality scores (P < 0.001), a higher SNR and CNR on the lateral rectus muscle (LRM) and medial rectus muscle (MRM) (P < 0.05), and a non-significant difference in the ADC of the LRM and MRM. Active TAO showed higher ADC than inactive TAO and healthy controls with both SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs (P < 0.001). Inactive TAO and healthy controls did not show a significant ADC difference with both DWIs. Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated better discrimination of active from inactive TAO (AUC:0.925 vs. 0.779; P = 0.007). The ADC was significantly correlated with CAS in SS EPI DWI (r = 0.391, P < 0.001) and FOCUS MUSE DWI (r = 0.645, P < 0.001). Conclusion FOCUS MUSE DWI provides better images for evaluating EOMs and better performance in diagnosing active TAO than SS EPI DWI. The application of FOCUS MUSE will facilitate the DWI evaluation of TAO.

Objective: To prospectively compare single-shot (SS) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS MUSE) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). Materials and Methods: SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs were obtained from 39 patients with TAO (18 male; mean ± standard deviation: 48.3 ± 13.3 years) and 26 healthy controls (9 male; mean ± standard deviation: 43.0 ± 18.5 years). Two radiologists scored the visual image quality using a 4-point Likert scale. The image quality score, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-tonoise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of extraocular muscles (EOMs) were compared between the two DWIs. Differences in the ADC of EOMs were also evaluated. The performance of discriminating active from inactive TAO was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The correlation between ADC and clinical activity score (CAS) was analyzed using Spearman correlation. Results: Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated significantly higher image quality scores (P < 0.001), a higher SNR and CNR on the lateral rectus muscle (LRM) and medial rectus muscle (MRM) (P < 0.05), and a non-significant difference in the ADC of the LRM and MRM. Active TAO showed higher ADC than inactive TAO and healthy controls with both SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs (P < 0.001). Inactive TAO and healthy controls did not show a significant ADC difference with both DWIs. Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated better discrimination of active from inactive TAO (AUC:0.925 vs. 0.779; P = 0.007). The ADC was significantly correlated with CAS in SS EPI DWI (r = 0.391, P < 0.001) and FOCUS MUSE DWI (r = 0.645, P < 0.001). Conclusion FOCUS MUSE DWI provides better images for evaluating EOMs and better performance in diagnosing active TAO than SS EPI DWI. The application of FOCUS MUSE will facilitate the DWI evaluation of TAO.

Objective: To prospectively compare single-shot (SS) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS MUSE) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). Materials and Methods: SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs were obtained from 39 patients with TAO (18 male; mean ± standard deviation: 48.3 ± 13.3 years) and 26 healthy controls (9 male; mean ± standard deviation: 43.0 ± 18.5 years). Two radiologists scored the visual image quality using a 4-point Likert scale. The image quality score, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-tonoise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of extraocular muscles (EOMs) were compared between the two DWIs. Differences in the ADC of EOMs were also evaluated. The performance of discriminating active from inactive TAO was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The correlation between ADC and clinical activity score (CAS) was analyzed using Spearman correlation. Results: Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated significantly higher image quality scores (P < 0.001), a higher SNR and CNR on the lateral rectus muscle (LRM) and medial rectus muscle (MRM) (P < 0.05), and a non-significant difference in the ADC of the LRM and MRM. Active TAO showed higher ADC than inactive TAO and healthy controls with both SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs (P < 0.001). Inactive TAO and healthy controls did not show a significant ADC difference with both DWIs. Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated better discrimination of active from inactive TAO (AUC:0.925 vs. 0.779; P = 0.007). The ADC was significantly correlated with CAS in SS EPI DWI (r = 0.391, P < 0.001) and FOCUS MUSE DWI (r = 0.645, P < 0.001). Conclusion FOCUS MUSE DWI provides better images for evaluating EOMs and better performance in diagnosing active TAO than SS EPI DWI. The application of FOCUS MUSE will facilitate the DWI evaluation of TAO.