115

Urology Journal

UNRC/IUA

Vol. 2, No. 2, 115-117 Spring 2005

Printed in IRAN

Case Reports

Malignant Mesothelioma of the Spermatic Cord:

Case Report and Review of the Literature

Peyman Mohammadi Torbati,1* Mahmoud Parvin,1 Seyyed Amirmohsen Ziaee2

1Department of Pathology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of

Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2Department of Urology, Shaheed Labbafinejad Medical Center, Shaheed Beheshti University of

Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

KEY WORDS: paratesticular tumors, malignant mesothelioma, spermatic cord

Introduction

Paratesticular malignant mesothelioma is a

rare tumor, previously reported in only 76 cases.

Most of these lesions originate from the tunica

vaginalis, and few cases arise from the

epididymis or spermatic cord. Middle-aged men

are most often affected, although an age range of

7 of 84 years has been reported in patients with

paratesticular malignant mesothelioma.(1) As in

benign mesothelial lesions, malignant

mesothelioma almost always manifests with

hydrocele,(4,5) fluid collection of which occurs

faster, leading to symptomatic disease in less

than 1 year. In 41% of cases, a history of contact

with asbestos has been documented.(2,3) We

report a case of malignant mesothelioma of the

spermatic cord in a 52-year-old man.

Case Report

A 52-year-old man presented at our institution

in July 2002 with right scrotal enlargement. He

had no history of granulomatous diseases such as

tuberculosis or sarcoidosis. His symptoms were

limited to enlargement of scrotum and a

sensation of heaviness. Changes in sexual

function, hematuria, and hemospermia were not

present. No unusual mass was detected on

physical examination and ultrasonography.

Accordingly, he underwent right battle neck

hydrocelectomy under spinal anesthesia. Since

there was no apparent macroscopic lesion,

histopathological examination was not performed. 

One year later, the patient returned with

recurrent hydrocele of the same side, and

ultrasonography revealed 2 multicystic lesions in

the right side of the scrotum (Figure 1).

Hydrocelectomy was repeated, and 2 cysts with

multiple cavities (1 that had adhered to the

spermatic cord and another that had adhered to

the epididymis) were excised. Macroscopic

features of the 2 cysts were similar. The external

surface of the cysts' walls was cream-grey, and

the internal surface of both had papulonodular

vegetation. Both cysts contained yellow, turbid,

condensed discharge and had multiple cavities.

The cyst that had adhered to the spermatic cord

measured 73 × 63 mm, and the one that had

adhered to the epididymis was 35 × 24 mm.

Microscopic evaluation of the cysts

demonstrated neoplastic malignancies with a

papulonodular growth pattern. There were foci of

invasion to the underlying desmoplastic stroma.

The tumoral cells were cube-shaped epithelioid,

containing various amounts of eosinophilic

cytoplasm, vesicular nuclei, and prominent

nucleoli with a moderate mitotic activity of 3

mitoses per 10 HPF in atypical shapes (Figure 2).

Based on the aforementioned, the differential

diagnoses were primary papillary adeno-

carcinoma, epithelioid malignant mesothelioma,

Received February 2004

Accepted June 2005

*Corresponding author: department of pathology,

Shaheed Labbafinejad hospital, 9th Boustan,

Pasdaran St., Tehran 1666679951, Iran.

Tel: ++98 21 2254 9010, Fax: ++98 21 2254 9039

E-mail: p2000torbati@yahoo.com



Malignant Mesothelioma of the Spermatic Cord116

and metastatic papillary adenocarcinoma of

unknown origin. To make a definite diagnosis,

histochemical and immunohistochemical methods

were used, and the following results were found:

negative reaction for periodic acid-Schiff and

mucicarmine; strong positive reaction for

calretinin, thrombomodulin, and cytokeratin 5/6

markers (Figure 2); diffused positive

immunostaining for epithelial membrane antigen

and CA-125 makers; and negative for Leu-M1,

carcinoembryonic antigen, B72.3, plasma alkaline

phosphatase, human chorionic gonadotrophin,

and alpha-fetoprotein. Considering the above,

especially positive calretinin and thrombo-

modulin, malignant mesothelioma of the

spermatic cord and epididymis was confirmed.

Abdominal and thoracic computed tomography

(CT) scans and an isotope scan of the thyroid

gland and bones were done to rule out any other

neoplastic foci. Distant metastases were not

present.

Radical orchidectomy was done, and 9 months

later, in April 2003, tumor resection was

performed owing to local recurrence. In the

summer of 2004, metastases to the inguinal

lymph nodes were resected, and eventually, in

January 2005, metastases to the ileac lymph

nodes were diagnosed. The patient refused

further treatment and has survived to date,

without tumor resection, chemotherapy, or

radiotherapy.

Discussion

Malignant mesothelioma is an uncommon

neoplastic lesion, seen in middle-aged and elderly

persons. Paratesticular mesothelioma is believed

to originate from a serosal cavity that covers the

anterior and lateral sides of the testis and

FIG. 3. Positive immunoreaction for calretinin (× 400)

FIG. 2. Tubulopapillar feature in malignant mesothelioma

(Hematoxilin-Eosin, × 400)

FIG. 1. Two multicystic lesions in the right scrotum on

sonography



Torbati et al 117

epididymis. It has been suggested that an

oncogene may have a role in the pathogenesis of

this tumor, and a history of contact with asbestos

also has been implicated.(5)

Multiple fragile, cystic, or solid masses are the

macroscopic feature of paratesticular

mesothelioma, and light microscopy shows

epithelioid cells, fusiform cells, or a mixture of

these patterns. Complementary techniques,

including immunostaining, immunohisto-

chemistry, and electron microscopy can help

differentiate the lesion from adenocarcinoma.

Mesothelioma can produce large amounts of

hyaluronic acid, which results in positive alcian

blue and colloidal iron staining. However, a

positive reaction to periodic acid-Schiff staining

and mucicarmine is highly suggestive for ruling

out malignant mesothelioma.(6,7) On electron

microscopy, microvilli are longer and thinner in

malignant mesothelioma than in

adenocarcinoma.(8) Positive reactivity for

cytokeratin cocktail, vimentin, epithelial

membrane antigen, and S-100, and occasionally

to desmin and bcl-2, is seen on

immunohistochemistry, but reactions for

carcinoembryonic antigen, Leu-M1, and B72.3

markers are almost always negative.(9)

Plas and colleagues reviewed 73 cases of

malignant mesothelioma of tunica vaginalis

diagnosed during a 30-year period.(10) They

concluded that the prognosis is poor,

corresponding to a mean survival of 23 months.

Radical orchiectomy and extensive surgical

resection of the suspicious sites is the definitive

treatment. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy do

not increase survival rate significantly, unless

distant metastases are present at diagnosis.

A common clinical course of paratesticular

mesotheliomas is the local recurring of the tumor

and subsequently, metastases to inguinal and

iliac lymph nodes.(11) It should be noted that

macroscopic and histopathological examinations

of scrotal lesions in patients with hydrocele are

necessary to help determine the etiology of these

lesions. 

References

1. Reynard JM, Hasan N, Baithun SI, Newman L, Lord

MG. Malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis

testis. Br J Urol. 1994;74:389-90.

2. Jones MA, Young RH, Scully RE. Malignant

mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis. A clinicopathologic

analysis of 11 cases with review of the literature. Am J

Surg Pathol. 1995;19:815-25.

3. Gupta NP, Agrawal AK, Sood S, Hemal AK, Nair M.

Malignant mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis testis: a

report of two cases and review of literature. J Surg

Oncol. 1999;70:251-4.

4. Whitaker D, Papadimitriou JM, Walters MN. The

mesothelium; techniques for investigating the origin,

nature and behaviour of mesothelial cells. J Pathol.

1980;132:263-71.

5. Morikawa Y, Ishihara Y, Yanase Y, et al. Malignant

mesothelioma of tunica vaginalis with squamous

differentiation. J Urol Pathol. 1994;2:95-102.

6. Kwee WS, Veldhuizen RW, Golding RP, et al. Histologic

distinction between malignant mesothelioma, benign

pleural lesion and carcinoma metastasis. Evaluation of

the application of morphometry combined with

histochemistry and immunostaining. Virchows Arch A

Pathol Anat Histol. 1982;397:287-99.

7. McCaughey WT, Colby TV, Battifora H, et al. Diagnosis

of diffuse malignant mesothelioma: experience of a

US/Canadian Mesothelioma Panel. Mod Pathol.

1991;4:342-53.

8. Burns TR, Greenberg SD, Mace ML, Johnson EH.

Ultrastructural diagnosis of epithelial malignant

mesothelioma. Cancer. 1985;56:2036-40.

9. Holden J, Churg A. Immunohistochemical staining for

keratin and carcinoembryonic antigen in the diagnosis of

malignant mesothelioma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1984;8:277-9.

10. Plas E, Riedl CR, Pfluger H. Malignant mesothelioma of

the tunica vaginalis testis: review of the literature and

assessment of prognostic parameters. Cancer.

1998;83:2437-46.

11. Butnor KJ, Sporn TA, Hammar SP, Roggli VL. Well-

differentiated papillary mesothelioma. Am J Surg Pathol.

2001;25:1304-9.