# Qualitative and quantitative spermatic cord abnormalities at CT predict symptomatic scrotal pathology

## TL;DR

This study shows that CT scans can accurately predict scrotal issues by analyzing spermatic cord abnormalities.

## Contribution

The study introduces a quantitative method for assessing spermatic cord enhancement on CT to predict scrotal pathology.

## Key findings

- 25% differential cord enhancement on CECT had 88.9% diagnostic accuracy for scrotal pathology.
- CECT outperformed NECT in predicting scrotal pathology with higher reader confidence and AUC.
- Qualitative abnormalities on both CECT and NECT were significant predictors of scrotal pathology.

## Abstract

To evaluate quantitative and qualitative spermatic cord CT abnormalities and presence of unilateral or bilateral symptomatic scrotal pathology (SSP) at ultrasound.

This retrospective study included 122 male patients (mean age 47.8 years) undergoing scrotal ultrasound within 24 h of contrast-enhanced CT (n = 85), non-contrast CT (NECT, n = 32) or CT-Urogram (n = 5). CECT quantitative analysis assessed differential cord enhancement using maximum Hounsfield unit measurements. Three fellowship trained body radiologists independently assessed qualitative cord abnormalities for both CECT and NECT. Qualitative and quantitative findings were compared with the presence of SSP. Reader performance, interobserver agreement and reader confidence were assessed for NECT and CECT. Quantitative cutoff points were identified which maximized accuracy, specificity, negative predictive value, and other measures.

SSP was present in 36/122 patients (29.5%). Positive cases were unilateral in 30 (83.3%) and bilateral in 6 (16.6%). At quantitative assessment, 25% differential cord enhancement had the highest diagnostic accuracy (88.9%), with 90.5% positive predictive value, 88.4% negative predictive value, 96.8% specificity, and 70.4% sensitivity. At qualitative evaluation, CECT reader performance was excellent (aggregate AUC = 0.86; P < .001); NECT was poorly discriminatory, although remained significant (aggregate AUC = 0.67; P = .002). Readers had significantly higher confidence levels with CECT (P < .001). Qualitative inter-observer agreement was high for both CECT and NECT (ICC = 0.981 and 0.963, respectively).

Simple quantitative assessment of differential cord enhancement is highly accurate and specific for SSP at CECT. Qualitative abnormalities at CECT and NECT are also both predictors of SSP, however, CECT significantly out-performs non-contrast exams.