Leydig cell tumors are the most frequent non-germ cell tumors of the testis, accounting for 1-3% of all testicular tumors. They present most commonly as a testicular mass or with endocrine symptoms. We report three new cases of Leydig cell tumori that presented in different forms. The relevant literature is reviewed and the management of these tumors is discussed.
Ponce de Leon RocaJ., Algaba ArreaF., Bassas ArnauL., Villavicencio MavrichH.: Leydig cell tumor of the testis. Arch Esp Urol, 53: 453–458, 2000.
4.
RaoS.R., MistryR.C., ParikhD.M.: Leydig cell tumor: a case report and review of the literature. Tumori, 88: 75–76, 2002.
5.
HekimgilM., AltayB., YakutB.D., SoydanS., OzyurtC., KilliR.: Leydig cell tumour of the testis: comparison of histopathological and immunohistochemical features of three azoospermic cases and one malignant case. Pathol Int, 51: 792–796, 2001.
6.
KaufmanE., AkiyaF., FoucarE., GambortF., CartwrightK.C.: Virilization due to Leydig cell tumor diagnosis by magnetic resonance imaging: case management report. Clin Pediatr, 29: 414–417, 1990.
7.
MaedaT., ItohN., KobayashiK., TakahashiA., MasumoriN., TsukamotoT.: Elevated serum estradiol suggesting recurrence of Leydig cell tumor nine years after radical orchidectomy. Int J Urol, 9: 659–661, 2002.
8.
UlbrightT.M., SrigleyJ.R., HatzianastassiouD.K., YoungR.H.: Leydig cell tumours of the testis with unusual features: adipose differentiation, calcification with ossification, and spindleshaped tumour cells. Am J Surg Pathol, 26: 1424–1433, 2002.
9.
ChevilleJ.C., SeboT.J., LagerD.J., BostwickD.G., FarrowG.M.: Leydig cell tumor of the testis: a clinicopathologic, DNA content, and MIB-1 comparison of nonmetastasizing and metastasizing tumors. Am J Surg Pathol, 22: 1361–1367, 1998.
10.
PowariM., KakkarN., SinghS.K., RaiR.S., JogaiS.: Malignant Leydig cell tumour of the testis. Urol Int, 68: 63–65, 2002.
11.
Jimenez Lopez-LucendoN., Fernandez DuranA., Martin GarciaC., Fernandez GomezJ., Martin DavilaF.: Malignant Leydig cell tumor. Report of a case and review of the literature. Arch Esp Urol, 52: 174–177, 1999.
