title: Malignant mesothelioma of tunica vaginalis: an extremely rare case presenting without risk factors.
abstract: Testicular tumours have many different manifestations, including hydrocele formation. Herein, we present an extremely rare case of testicular mesothelioma presenting with left hydrocele, but without risk factors. Left radical inguinal orchidectomy was performed, and pathological examination revealed a malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis of the testis. No infiltration of the spermatic cord was evident, and upon advanced radiological evaluation, no sign of metastasis was detected. Follow-up was still ongoing in our urology outpatient clinic at the time of this report. Although hydrocele is a simple and common condition that is easy to diagnose, a detailed investigation should be performed. Thus, when encountering a patient with hydrocele, the clinician should evaluate the possibility of the presence of an underlying testicular/paratesticular tumour, including a rare one such as mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, Harran University School of Medicine, Sanliurfa 63100, Turkey. yigitakin@yahoo.com.
authors.forename: Y
authors.initials: Y
authors.lastname: Akin
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Bassorgun
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Basara
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Yucel
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D008175:Lung Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D008297:Male; D008654:Mesothelioma / Q000175:diagnosis*; D000086002:Mesothelioma, Malignant; D008875:Middle Aged; D009362:Neoplasm Metastasis; D009919:Orchiectomy; D012307:Risk Factors; D012611:Scrotum / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D013085:Spermatic Cord / Q000473:pathology; D006848:Testicular Hydrocele / Q000175:diagnosis*; D013736:Testicular Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis*; D013737:Testis / Q000473:pathology; D014463:Ultrasonography
references.citation: Semin Diagn Pathol. 2000 Nov;17(4):294-306
references.pmid: 11202546
references.citation: Cases J. 2008 Nov 14;1(1):310
references.pmid: 19014568
references.citation: Ann Oncol. 2007 May;18(5):827-34
references.pmid: 17130182
references.citation: Int Urol Nephrol. 2001;32(4):687-9
references.pmid: 11989565
references.citation: Cancer. 1998 Dec 15;83(12):2437-46
references.pmid: 9874447
references.citation: World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:238
references.pmid: 23140511
references.citation: Histopathology. 2000 Aug;37(2):150-9
references.pmid: 10931239
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2006 Mar 20;24(9):1443-8
references.pmid: 16549838
references.citation: Am J Surg Pathol. 1995 Jul;19(7):815-25
references.pmid: 7793480
references.citation: Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2004 Aug;22(3):723-48, ix
references.pmid: 15301848
references.citation: Br J Radiol. 2004 Sep;77(921):780-1
references.pmid: 15447967
references.citation: Aktuelle Urol. 2006 Jul;37(4):281-3
references.pmid: 16878282
references.citation: Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012 Mar;136(3):262-7
references.pmid: 22372902
references.citation: Korean J Urol. 2011 Mar;52(3):225-9
references.pmid: 21461290