The value of testicular ultrasound in the prediction of the type and size of testicular tumors

ABSTRACTObjectives:Ultrasound (US) is often used for the work-up of testicular pathology. The findings may implicate on its management. However, there is only scant data on the correlation between US findings and testicular tumor type and size. Herein, we report on a multicenter study, analyzing these correlations.Methods:The study included patients who underwent orchiectomy between 2000 and 2010. Their charts were reviewed for US echogeneity, lesion size, pathological dimensions, histology, and the presence of calcifications, fibrosis, necrosis and/or intraepithelial neoplasia. The incidence of these parameters in benign versus malignant lesions and seminomatous germ cell tumors (SGCT) versus nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCT) was statistically compared.Results:Eighty five patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 71 malignant (43 SGCT, 28 NSGCT) and 14 benign. Sonographic lesions were at least 20% smaller than the pathologically determined dimensions in 21 (25%) patients. The ability of US in estimating the size of malignant tumors was 71%, compared to 100% of benign tumors (p=0.03), with no significant difference between SGCT and NSGCT. Necrosis was more frequent in malignant tumors (p=0.03); hypoechogeneity and fibrosis were more frequent in SGCT than in NSGCT (p=0.002 and 0.04 respectively).Conclusions:Testis US of malignant lesions underestimates the size in 25% of the cases, a fact that may impact on the decision of testicular sparing surgery. The ultrasonic lesions were eventually proven to be benign in 16% of the cases. Therefore it is advised to apply frozen sections in borderline cases. Hypoechogeneity is more frequent in SGCT than NSGCT

Late 1920s film theory and criticism as a test-case for Benjamin’s generalizations on the experiential effects of editing

This article investigates Walter Benjamin’s influential generalization that the effects of cinema are akin to the hyper-stimulating experience of modernity. More specifically, I focus on his oft-cited 1935/36 claim that all editing elicits shock-like disruption. First, I propose a more detailed articulation of the experience of modernity understood as hyper-stimulation and call for distinguishing between at least two of its subsets: the experience of speed and dynamism, on the one hand, and the experience of shock/disruption, on the other. Then I turn to classical film theory of the late 1920s to demonstrate the existence of contemporary views on editing alternative to Benjamin’s. For instance, whereas classical Soviet and Weimar theorists relate the experience of speed and dynamism to both Soviet and classical Hollywood style editing, they reserve the experience of shock/disruption for Soviet montage. In order to resolve the conceptual disagreement between these theorists, on the one hand, and Benjamin, on the other, I turn to late 1920s Weimar film criticism. I demonstrate that, contrary to Benjamin’s generalizations about the disruptive and shock-like nature of all editing, and in line with other theorists’ accounts, different editing practices were regularly distinguished by comparison to at least two distinct hyper-stimulation subsets: speed and dynamism, and shock-like disruption. In other words, contemporaries regularly distinguished between Soviet montage and classical Hollywood editing patterns on the basis of experiential effects alone. On the basis of contemporary reviews of city symphonies, I conclude with a proposal for distinguishing a third subset – confusion. This is an original manuscript / preprint of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Early Popular Visual Culture on 02 Aug 2016 available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460654.2016.1199322