Qian Lu
Liming Yang
Shiyan Li- Department of Ultrasound in Medicine, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is a rare tumor with low malignant potential, generally occurring in the pancreas. In this article, we report a case of extra-pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the testis (ESPN-T) of a 36-year-old male patient. The patient incidentally discovered a scrotal mass. Ultrasonography revealed a well-defined, regular cystic-solid lesion within the left testis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed a nodular mass within the left testis, characterized by an isointense signal on T1-weighted imaging, a heterogeneous signal on T2-weighted imaging, and inhomogeneous enhancement after contrast administration. The patient subsequently underwent radical orchiectomy on the left side. The morphologic and immunohistochemical features of the testicular lesion confirmed the diagnosis of ESPN. Follow-up for 2 years after surgery revealed no signs of recurrence or metastasis. This is a rare case of SPN in the testis in China, which expands the differential diagnosis of testicular lesions and therapeutic strategies of ESPNs.
Introduction
Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) is an uncommon, low-grade malignant tumor of the pancreas, accounting for less than 3% of all pancreatic exocrine neoplasms (1–3). It predominantly affects young women and occurs more frequently in the head or tail of the pancreas (4–6). Since SPNs are generally asymptomatic or present with non-specific symptoms (7), most lesions are incidentally detected during imaging examinations. Extrapancreatic SPN (ESPN) is even rarer. To our knowledge, there are only a few reported cases of ESPNs within the testicles (8, 9), one of which occurred in the paratesticular position. More details about these seven cases are summarized in Table 1. Here we present one case of extra-pancreatic SPN of the testis (ESPN-T) in a young man in China. We summarize the imaging characteristics of this tumor, analyze it in combination with pathological features, and review previously published literature.
Table 1. Summary of solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the testis or paratestis.
Case summary
A 36-year-old man noticed an indolent left testicular mass on self-palpation in 2021. Due to the absence of other symptoms, he did not seek medical attention and was followed for more than 2 years. At 1 week before his visit in 2023, he perceived an enlargement of the mass and visited our urology department. His physical exam revealed a 2-cm mass in the left testicle. The mass is moderately firm, with well-defined borders and moderate mobility. No previous medical or family history of genetic disorders was found. Subsequently, the scrotal grayscale ultrasound revealed a well-circumscribed, regular, solid-cystic mass located within the left testis. The solid component of the mass was predominant, and its rim was slightly hyperechoic. The largest section measured approximately 2 × 2 cm. Color Doppler imaging (CDFI) demonstrated the peripheral and intratumoral blood flow signals of the lesion (Figure 1).
Figure 1. B-mode ultrasound showed a well-circumscribed, regular, solid-cystic mass located within the left testis; the solid component of the mass was predominant, and its rim is slightly hyperechoic (A, B). Color Doppler imaging (CDFI) demonstrated peripheral and intratumoral blood flow signals (C). MRI showed isointense signals on T1-weighted images (D) and heterogeneous signals on T2-weighted images (E), with heterogeneous enhancement in the arterial phase (F); no hyperintense signal was observed on DWI (G).
For further diagnosis, the patient underwent a pelvic MRI examination. The contrast-enhanced pelvic MRI showed a 21 × 20-mm nodule within the left testis that was isointense on T1-weighted images and heterogeneous on T2-weighted images. After gadolinium administration, the lesion was enhanced heterogeneously. DWI shows no hyperintense signal in the lesion (Figure 1). Ultimately, the radiologist reports a germ cell tumor. Additionally, tumor markers such as CA-199, CA-125, AFP, CEA, and ferritin were all within normal ranges. The reproductive hormone levels were normal, except for a mild elevation in prolactin at 22.10 (normal range: 2.64–12.13 μg/L). Biochemical tests showed slight increases in cholesterol and uric acid. The complete blood count revealed no abnormalities.
Based on imaging and laboratory examinations, the patient was advised to undergo surgery. He underwent a left radical orchiectomy under general anesthesia. Macroscopically, the cross-section of the tumor appeared fleshy and fish-like in appearance. Histopathology showed that the neoplasm consists of solid sheets and nests of epithelioid cells arranged around vessels to form pseudopapillary structures. Delicate fibrous septa intermittently traversed the neoplastic tissue. The cells were monotonous, with visible nuclear grooves and rare mitoses. The tumor cells appeared with vacuolated cytoplasm in some places (Figure 2). Immunohistochemistry showed positive staining for nuclear β-catenin, partial CD56, vimentin, cyclin D1, and focal pan-CK (AE1/AE3). At the same time, the neoplastic cells exhibited negative results for CD10, HCG, AFP, inhibin, CD99, FLI-1, P504S, PLAP, OCT-4, CA117, Glypican-3, S-100, SALL4, FOXL2, SF-1, Syn, chromogranin A (CgA), and calretinin (Figure 2). After surgery, the patient received no additional treatment but was consistently followed up at the outpatient clinic. Follow-up examinations at the local hospital revealed no signs of recurrence, and the serum test showed no abnormalities. A treatment timeline diagram is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 2. Histopathological features (H&E): (A, C) pseudopapillary structures (×100 and ×200 magnification); (B) solid nests and sheets of cells with an epithelioid appearance (×100 magnification); (D) in some foci, tumor cells had vacuolated cytoplasm, and some areas exhibit eosinophilic bodies (pointed to by the arrow) (×400 magnification). Immunohistochemical findings (×100 magnification): the tumor cells are positive for (E) β-catenin (nuclear and cytoplasmic), (F) cyclin D1, (G) CD56, and (H) vimentin.
Figure 3. Treatment timeline diagram of the case.
Discussion
The histogenesis of ESPNs remains elusive, with two main hypotheses proposed, namely: (1) origin from pancreatic progenitor cells with multidirectional differentiation capacity and (2) derivation from multipotent genital ridge cells that adhered to the pancreas during early embryogenesis. The latter is supported by the female predominance of SPNs, a relatively young age distribution, the lack of pancreatic markers, expression of sex hormone receptors, and occasional post-menopausal regression (10). Previous literature has revealed that ectopic pancreatic tissue has been recognized in organs like the mesentery, colon, and so on, which demonstrated that they shared embryologic derivation with the primitive duodenum (11–13). In the present case, however, no ectopic pancreatic tissue was identified, favoring the genital ridge hypothesis. Molecularly, most SPNs harbor mutations within exon 3 of the β-catenin gene (CTNNB1), thereby causing the nuclear accumulation of β-catenin and the activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, which promotes tumorigenesis (14).
Compared to other neoplasms, identifying ESPNs based on imaging findings exhibits a slightly lower accuracy, but it still exerts an indispensable effect in the preliminary diagnosis of ESPNs. Among the most widely used imaging modalities, such as ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and MRI, ESPNs share similarities with SPNs-P in imaging manifestations. At ultrasonography, SPNs-P typically are identified as round or oval lesions with heterogeneous hypoechogenicity, which may present as solid, cystic, or mixed morphology; some may show hypoechoic or anechoic fissures, while calcifications are relatively rare (15, 16). These tumors are often encapsulated and have a hyperechoic rim, with clear boundaries and regular shapes (17). CDFI commonly detects sparse blood flow signals due to the few and thin nutrient vessels of the tumor (16). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) exhibits marginal perfusion in the early arterial phase, and the interiors are heterogeneously enhanced (18). Under CT, the characteristic manifestation of SPNs is an encapsulated mass comprised of irregular solid and cystic components (19, 20). On MRI, lesions of SPNs usually exhibit a hypointense signal on T1-weighted images but may contain hyperintense signal foci due to internal bleeding; a heterogeneous high-signal may generally be seen on T2-weighted images (21), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) presents a hyperintense signal (22). The solid part of the SPNs exhibited inhomogeneous enhancement in the arterial phase and progressive enhancement during the venous phase (23). However, these manifestations may vary with the ratio of solid/cystic components, presence of bleeding, or calcification (24). Moreover, MRI has the advantage in distinguishing tumors from surrounding normal tissues (2), which is somewhat significant in determining the degree of malignancy. In this case, grayscale ultrasound and MRI findings were analogous to those of SPNs, although CDFI in this case showed peripheral and internal blood flow signals. Inconsistent results may be explained in future analyses with larger sample sizes. Unfortunately, due to various limitations, CEUS was not performed for auxiliary diagnosis.
A definitive diagnosis of ESPNs relies on pathology ultimately. Microscopically, the tumor consists of morphologically uniform, poorly adherent epithelioid tumor cells arranged in solid nests as well as reticular and trabecular patterns. One or more layers of tumor cells encircle the fibrovascular axis, forming pseudopapillary projections (25). In addition to these typical characteristics, the tumor cells in some lesions have vacuolar cytoplasm (20). Eosinophilic granules may be visible within or outside the cytoplasm (26). Generally, immunohistochemical staining should include β-catenin, CD10, CD56, vimentin, E-cadherin, CgA, cytokeratin (CK), and synaptophysin (Syn) (27, 28) or at least include the first five. Immunohistochemical staining for markers such as CD10, vimentin, CD56, and cyclin D1 in tumors is generally positive, particularly for β-catenin (10). CK and Syn may show varying degrees of expression. CgA, inhibin, or E-cadherin is mostly negative (15). The diffuse expression of β-catenin in cells is considered an essential indicator of pathogenesis, linked to the activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway (29). Extra-immunohistochemical markers required for ESPNs should be determined based on the specific organ involved (25, 30). In our case, all significant markers associated with germ cells (SALL4, AFP, HCG, OCT3/4, and Glypican-3) and sex cord-stromal cells (inhibin, SF-1, and S-100) were negative. This supports the conclusion that the tumor in this case did not originate from either of these sources. Unexpectedly, β-catenin, CD56, vimentin, and cyclin D1 stainings were positive in the case. Based on morphologic features and IHC, the present case was confirmed to have the diagnosis of ESPN. Compared to some previous cases, our tumor exhibits slight differences, as it is negative for CD10 and Syn. Moreover, we did not include all associated immunohistochemical markers in our testing, considering the financial burden on patients and their non-critical role in diagnosis.
As a mass within the testicle, germ cell tumors (GCTs) are the primary consideration in differential diagnosis, with mixed germ cell tumors (MGCTs) being the second most common subtype after seminomas (31). TMGCTs exhibit similar imaging features to our case, presenting as cystic-solid masses (31–34). Clinical manifestations and laboratory test discrepancies hold greater initial differential diagnostic value. TMGCTs are aggressive malignancies that grow rapidly, causing scrotal swelling and early metastasis (particularly when accompanied by highly invasive subtypes), which may subsequently lead to metastasis-related symptoms (35). Additionally, some TMGCTs may be associated with elevated alpha-fetoprotein or human chorionic gonadotropin levels (36). More detailed descriptions are presented in Table 2. Furthermore, previous reports have described a rare tumor arising in the testis, designated as the “primary testicular signet-ring stromal tumor” (PTSRST) (37). This entity, which has 13 reported cases, also expresses β-catenin and is morphologically similar to SPN to a certain extent, but the former also contains a signet ring cell component in microscopy (9, 38). In subsequent studies, the authors hypothesized that the two belonged to the same category. The hypothesis posits that signet ring cell components are present in the initial stage, and as the tumor expands, solid pseudopapillary components become more ascendant. However, subsequent studies have challenged this notion: detailed comparisons reveal statistically significant differences in morphology and immunohistochemical profiles (39), and PTSRSTs are generally smaller than ESPN-T, leading to the conclusion that a blanket classification would be premature. In addition, there is also a difference in size between the two entities, with PTSRST being smaller than ESPN-T (9, 22). To avoid misclassification, the diagnostic workup should include a careful morphological assessment and an extended immunohistochemical panel to exclude sex-cord stromal differentiation (40). Attention to subtle cytologic details, the inclusion of sex cord stromal and germ cell markers, and consideration of tumor size may assist in differentiation; however, further larger-scale sample studies are needed to validate these clues.
Table 2. Differential diagnosis of our case.
Reviewing previous studies, we found that surgery was the primary treatment for ESPN (22, 41–44). In most cases, no subsequent therapy was recommended post-surgery, with only follow-up visits advised. Currently, the sample size for ESPN is limited, and its treatment and follow-up strategies essentially reference those of SPN. Only a very small number of highly aggressive tumors experienced rapid recurrence after surgery, leading to subsequent chemotherapy with poor prognosis (28). However, there is currently no consensus on specific chemotherapy regimens (2). The recommended chemotherapy regimens include gemcitabine, FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, ifosfamide, cisplatin, and etoposide (45). ESPNs, like SPNs, are considered as indolent tumors, and patients undergoing complete resection generally have favorable outcomes. The risk factors for recurrence include incomplete resection, large tumor size, younger patient age, tumor rupture, and male gender (46, 47). For high-risk patients, follow-up should be intensified.
In conclusion, this case expands the imaging, clinical, and morphological spectrum of ESPNs by documenting a rare primary testicular origin (ESPN-T). ESPN-T exhibits indolent biological behavior, as evidenced by the 2-year post-surgical follow-up, with no recurrence or metastasis. Complete surgical excision remains the cornerstone of treatment. While ESPNs are generally considered low-malignant-potential neoplasms, isolated cases (particularly in men) have shown metastasis and disease-related mortality, emphasizing the need for long-term surveillance. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to clarify the classification of such lesions and refine diagnostic and management strategies.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Informed Consent Form for the Collection of Biological Samples and Related Data at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital Affiliated to Zhejiang University School of Medicine. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.
Author contributions
QL: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. LY: Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. SL: Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Allam M, Hidalgo Salinas C, Machairas N, Kostakis ID, Watkins J, and Fusai GK. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas: a single-center experience and review of the literature. J Gastrointest Cancer. (2022) 53:460–5. doi: 10.1007/s12029-021-00638-6
2. Lu X, Chen H, and Zhang T. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) of the pancreas: current understanding on its Malignant potential and management. Discov Oncol. (2024) 15:77. doi: 10.1007/s12672-024-00905-5
3. Liu Q, Dai M, Guo J, Wu H, Wang W, Chen G, et al. Long-term survival, quality of life, and molecular features of the patients with solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: A retrospective study of 454 cases. Ann Surg. (2023) 278:1009–17. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005842
4. Wu L, Zou T, Shi D, Cheng H, Shahbaz M, Umar M, et al. Age in combination with gender is a valuable parameter in differential diagnosis of solid pseudopapillary tumors and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm. BMC Endocr Disord. (2022) 22:255. doi: 10.1186/s12902-022-01164-7
5. Wu J, Mao Y, Jiang Y, Song Y, Yu P, Sun S, et al. Sex differences in solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: A population-based study. Cancer Med. (2020) 9:6030–41. doi: 10.1002/cam4.3180
6. Mylonas KS, Doulamis IP, Tsilimigras DI, Nasioudis D, Schizas D, Masiakos PT, et al. Solid pseudopapillary and Malignant pancreatic tumors in childhood: A systematic review and evidence quality assessment. Pediatr Blood Cancer. (2018) 65:e27114. doi: 10.1002/pbc.27114
7. Lanke G, Ali FS, and Lee JH. Clinical update on the management of pseudopapillary tumor of pancreas. World J Gastrointest Endosc. (2018) 10:145–55. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v10.i9.145
8. Dorwal P, Abou-Seif C, Shamassi M, Mitchell C, Clouston D, Pascoe C, et al. Signet ring stromal tumours of testis: a tale of two cases on a morphological spectrum. Pathology. (2023) 55:883–6. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2023.02.004
9. Michalova K, Michal M, Sedivcova M, Kazakov DV, Bacchi C, Antic T, et al. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm (SPN) of the testis: Comprehensive mutational analysis of 6 testicular and 8 pancreatic SPNs. Ann Diagn Pathol. (2018) 35:42–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2018.04.003
10. Kosmahl M, Seada LS, Jänig U, Harms D, and Klöppel G. Solid-pseudopapillary tumor of the pancreas: its origin revisited. Virchows Arch. (2000) 436:473–80. doi: 10.1007/s004280050475
11. Tornóczky T, Kálmán E, Jáksó P, Méhes G, Pajor L, Kajtár GG, et al. Solid and papillary epithelial neoplasm arising in heterotopic pancreatic tissue of the mesocolon. J Clin Pathol. (2001) 54:241–5. doi: 10.1136/jcp.54.3.241
12. Khaniya S, Shakya VC, and Koirala R. Solid pseudopapillary tumor in an ectopic pancreas: an unusual presentation. J Surg Case Rep. (2017) 2017:rjx050. doi: 10.1093/jscr/rjx050
13. Elorza Orúe JL, Ruiz Díaz I, Tubía Landaberea J, and San Vicente Leza M. Solid and papillary tumor on ectopic pancreas in transversal mesocolon. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. (1991) 79:429–31. doi: 10.1136/jcp.54.3.241
14. Tiemann K, Heitling U, Kosmahl M, and Klöppel G. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas show an interruption of the Wnt-signaling pathway and express gene products of 11q. Mod Pathol. (2007) 20:955–60. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800902
15. Abudalou M, Vega EA, Dhingra R, Holzwanger E, Krishnan S, Kondratiev S, et al. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm-diagnostic approach and post-surgical follow up: Three case reports and review of literature. World J Clin Cases. (2021) 9:1682–95. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i7.1682
16. Pawlak KM, Tehami N, Maher B, Asif S, Rawal KK, Balaban DV, et al. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the characterization of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. World J Gastrointest Endosc. (2023) 15:273–84. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v15.i4.273
17. Gandhi D, Sharma P, Parashar K, Kochar PS, Ahuja K, Sawhney H, et al. Solid pseudopapillary Tumor of the Pancreas: Radiological and surgical review. Clin Imaging. (2020) 67:101–7. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2020.06.008
18. Deniz K, Arıkan TB, Başkol M, and Karahan Ö. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. J Gastrointest Surg. (2021) 25:322–4. doi: 10.1007/s11605-020-04644-0
19. Wu H, Huang YF, Liu XH, and Xu MH. Extrapancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm followed by multiple metastases: Case report. World J Gastrointest Oncol. (2017) 9:497–501. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v9.i12.497
20. Lin DL, Li H, Jiang TJ, Wu J, Zhao H, Hu SS, et al. Extrapancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: report of a unique case of primary posterior mediastinum origin and review of the literature. Transl Cancer Res. (2020) 9:3024–9. doi: 10.21037/tcr.2020.02.58
21. Ventriglia A, Manfredi R, Mehrabi S, Boninsegna E, Negrelli R, Pedrinolla B, et al. MRI features of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. Abdom Imaging. (2014) 39:1213–20. doi: 10.1007/s00261-014-0169-y
22. Liu H, Xu Z, Wang Y, Gu H, Tang Y, Wu D, et al. Case report: A case report and literature review of extrapancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm. Front Surg. (2022) 9:1020044. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.1020044
23. Kovac JD, Djikic-Rom A, Bogdanovic A, Jankovic A, Grubor N, Djuricic G, et al. The role of MRI in the diagnosis of solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas and its mimickers: A case-based review with emphasis on differential diagnosis. Diagn (Basel). (2023) 13(6):1074. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13061074
24. Anil G, Zhang J, Al Hamar NE, and Nga ME. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: CT imaging features and radiologic-pathologic correlation. Diagn Interv Radiol. (2017) 23:94–9. doi: 10.5152/dir.2016.16104
25. Yoshikawa A, Ryu Y, Takata H, Asaumi Y, Sakatoku M, and Terahata S. An extrapancreatic solid-pseudopapillary neoplasm in the greater omentum. BJR Case Rep. (2017) 3:20170008. doi: 10.1259/bjrcr.20170008
26. La Rosa S and Bongiovanni M. Pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: key pathologic and genetic features. Arch Pathol Lab Med. (2020) 144:829–37. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2019-0473-RA
27. Wang P, Wei J, Wu J, Xu W, Chen Q, Gao W, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of solid-pseudopapillary tumors of the pancreas: A single institution experience with 97 cases. Pancreatology. (2018) 18:415–9. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2017.12.012
28. Din NU, Rahim S, Abdul-Ghafar J, Ahmed A, and Ahmad Z. Clinicopathological and immunohistochemical study of 29 cases of solid-pseudopapillary neoplasms of the pancreas in patients under 20 years of age along with detailed review of literature. Diagn Pathol. (2020) 15:139. doi: 10.1186/s13000-020-01058-z
29. Agaimy A and Haller F. CTNNB1 (β-catenin)-altered neoplasia: A review focusing on soft tissue neoplasms and parenchymal lesions of uncertain histogenesis. Adv Anat Pathol. (2016) 23:1–12. doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000104
30. Zhao Z, Lin J, Bai T, Liao H, and Liu Z. Case Report: Primary solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the ovary with “cholesteroma-like” denaturation. Front Oncol. (2025) 15:1514460. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1514460
31. Bhardwaj S, Salimian M, Matoso A, Gross J, Argani P, and Baraban E. Establishing the diagnosis of germ cell tumors in patients presenting with metastatic disease: A series of 55 cases emphasizing challenges commonly encountered in core biopsies. Am J Surg Pathol. (2025) 49:1097–104. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000002438
32. Xue N, Zhang S, and Wang G. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of primary testicular non-neoplastic and neoplastic lesions in adults. BMC Urol. (2022) 22:210. doi: 10.1186/s12894-022-01163-9
33. Drudi FM, Valentino M, Bertolotto M, Malpassini F, Maghella F, Cantisani V, et al. CEUS time intensity curves in the differentiation between leydig cell carcinoma and seminoma: A multicenter study. Ultraschall Med. (2016) 37:201–5. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1398841
34. Liu R, Lei Z, Li A, Jiang Y, and Ji J. Differentiation of testicular seminoma and nonseminomatous germ cell tumor on magnetic resonance imaging. Med (Baltimore). (2019) 98:e17937. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017937
35. Stephenson A, Bass EB, Bixler BR, Daneshmand S, Kirkby E, Marianes A, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of early-stage testicular cancer: AUA guideline amendment 2023. J Urol. (2024) 211:20–5. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000003694
36. Ambekar A, Rao V, Pai SA, Bindhu MR, Midha D, Kaushal S, et al. Grossing and reporting of testicular tumor specimens: An evidence-based approach. Indian J Cancer. (2020) 57:7–12. doi: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_1072_19
37. Michal M, Hes O, and Kazakov DV. Primary signet-ring stromal tumor of the testis. Virchows Arch. (2005) 447:107–10. doi: 10.1007/s00428-005-1218-2
38. Michalova K, Michal M Jr., Kazakov DV, Sedivcova M, Hes O, Hadravsky L, et al. Primary signet ring stromal tumor of the testis: a study of 13 cases indicating their phenotypic and genotypic analogy to pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm. Hum Pathol. (2017) 67:85–93. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2017.07.010
39. Kao CS and Ulbright TM. A morphologic and immunohistochemical comparison of nuclear β-catenin expressing testicular sertoli cell tumors and pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasms supporting their continued separate classification. Am J Surg Pathol. (2020) 44:1082–91. doi: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000001527
40. Michal M, Michalova K, Michal M Jr., Hes O, and Kazakov DV. Pseudo-”solid pseudopapillary neoplasms” of the testis: in reality Sertoli cell tumors-reply. Hum Pathol. (2019) 83:230–2. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2018.07.034
41. Chen L, Yuan M, Wang M, Luo C, Gao M, Huang Q, et al. Case report: Retroperitoneal solid pseudopapillary neoplasm associated with multiple hepatic metastases. Front Oncol. (2024) 14:1335930. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1335930
42. Liu AH, Zhao ZQ, Li XW, Xu B, Yu RF, Ye SF, et al. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: Report of a case of primary ovarian origin and review of the literature. Heliyon. (2023) 9:e19318. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19318
43. Zhang A, Wang K, Tian X, Chen S, Xu J, Liu H, et al. First case report of diagnosis of extrapancreatic solid pseudopapillary tumor with SMA invasion in a 47-year-old man: a case report and literature review. Front Surg. (2024) 11:1409564. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1409564
44. Gerszman E, Sonkin V, Sabo E, Radzishevsky N, Haddad R, and Mahamid A. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the diaphragm: A case report. Isr Med Assoc J. (2025) 27:740–2. Available online at: https://www.ima.org.il/MedicineIMAJ/viewarticle.aspx?year=2025&month=11&page=740
45. Soloni P, Cecchetto G, Dall’igna P, Carli M, Toffolutti T, and Bisogno G. Management of unresectable solid papillary cystic tumor of the pancreas. A case report and literature review. J Pediatr Surg. (2010) 45:e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.02.045
46. Lubezky N, Papoulas M, Lessing Y, Gitstein G, Brazowski E, Nachmany I, et al. Solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas: Management and long-term outcome. Eur J Surg Oncol. (2017) 43:1056–60. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2017.02.001
47. Sibio S and Di Carlo S. Current highlights on solid pseudopapillary neoplasm of the pancreas. World J Hepatol. (2022) 14:300–3. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v14.i1.300
Keywords: case report, extra-pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm, testicular mass, testis, β-catenin
Citation: Lu Q, Yang L and Li S (2026) Extra-pancreatic solid pseudopapillary neoplasm: a case report of primary testis origin and review of the literature. Front. Oncol. 15:1691249. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1691249
Received: 23 August 2025; Accepted: 15 December 2025; Revised: 15 December 2025;
Published: 07 January 2026.
Edited by:
Terence Moyana, The Ottawa Hospital, CanadaReviewed by:
Naonori Kawakubo, Kyushu University, JapanXiaoyue Lu, Peking Union Medical College Hospital (CAMS), China
Copyright © 2026 Lu, Yang and Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Shiyan Li, bGlzaGl5YW5Aemp1LmVkdS5jbg==