Hematospermia

Variant: 1 Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
TRUS prostate	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US scrotum	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
PSMA PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Male. Greater than or equal to 40 years of age with hematospermia; or male of any age with persistent or recurrent hematospermia or hematospermia accompanied by associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
TRUS prostate	May Be Appropriate	O
US scrotum	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluciclovine PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
PSMA PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Carla Harmath, MD^a; Brian C. Allen, MD^b; Baris Turkbey, MD^c; Samantha J. Barker, MD^d; Donnie Batie, MD^e; Daniel N. Costa, MD^f; Marielia Gerena, MD^g; Joshua A. Halpern, MD^h; Tasneem Lalani, MDⁱ; Pat Whitworth III, MD^j; Chadwick L. Wright, MD, PhD^k; Gaurav Khatri, MD^l.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (ie, only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (ie, more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
A. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
D. CT pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
E. CT pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
F. CT pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
G. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
H. CTA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
I. CTA pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
J. CTU without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
K. Fluciclovine PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
L. Fluciclovine PET/MRI skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
M. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
N. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
O. MRI pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
P. MRI pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
Q. MRU without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
R. MRU without IV contrast

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
S. PSMA PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
T. TRUS prostate

Variant 1: Male. Less than 40 years of age. Transient hematospermia. No associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.
U. US scrotum

Variant 2: Male. Greater than or equal to 40 years of age with hematospermia; or male of any age with persistent or recurrent hematospermia or hematospermia accompanied by associated signs or symptoms of disease. Initial imaging.

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Coppens L, Bonnet P, Andrianne R, de Leval J. Adult mullerian duct or utricle cyst: clinical significance and therapeutic management of 65 cases. J Urol. 2002; 167(4):1740-1744.
2.	Dantanarayana N. Haematospermia. [Review]. Australian Family Physician. 44(12):907-10, 2015 Dec.
3.	Khodamoradi K, Kuchakulla M, Narasimman M, et al. Laboratory and clinical management of leukocytospermia and hematospermia: a review. [Review]. Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health. 14:2633494120922511, 2020 Jan-Dec.
4.	Leocadio DE, Stein BS. Hematospermia: etiological and management considerations. [Review] [37 refs]. Int Urol Nephrol. 41(1):77-83, 2009.
5.	Liao LG, Li YF, Zhang Y, et al. Etiology of 305 cases of refractory hematospermia and therapeutic options by emerging endoscopic technology. Scientific Reports. 9(1):5018, 2019 03 22.
6.	Mathers MJ, Degener S, Sperling H, Roth S. Hematospermia-a Symptom With Many Possible Causes. [Review]. Deutsches Arzteblatt International. 114(11):186-191, 2017 Mar 17.
7.	Parnham A, Serefoglu EC. Retrograde ejaculation, painful ejaculation and hematospermia. [Review]. Translational Andrology & Urology. 5(4):592-601, 2016 Aug.
8.	Salonia A, Bettocchi C, Boeri L, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Sexual and Reproductive Health-2021 Update: Male Sexual Dysfunction. European Urology. 80(3):333-357, 2021 09.
9.	Turo R, Horsu S, Calinciuc A, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging helpful in detecting significant prostate cancer in patients with haematospermia, normal prostate specific antigen level and digital rectal examination. A single institution, observational, and retrospective study in a United Kingdom hospital. Central European Journal of Urology. 71(1):26-30, 2018.
10.	Drury RH, King B, Herzog B, Hellstrom WJG. Hematospermia Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment, and Sexual Ramifications: A Narrative Review. [Review]. Sexual Medicine Reviews. 10(4):669-680, 2022 10 01.
11.	Efesoy O, Cayan S, Akbay E. Novel Algorithm for the Management of Hematospermia. Turkish Journal of Urology. 48(6):398-405, 2022 Nov.
12.	Mittal PK, Camacho JC, Sahani DV, et al. Hematospermia Evaluation at MR Imaging. [Review]. Radiographics. 36(5):1373-89, 2016 Sep-Oct.
13.	Han H, Lei HE, Zhang XD, Tian L. Magnetic resonance imaging compared to ultrasound as the preferred method for diagnosing intractable haematospermia. Andrologia. 53(6):e14054, 2021 Jul.
14.	Lee G. Chronic Prostatitis: A Possible Cause of Hematospermia. The World Journal of Mens Health. 33(2):103-8, 2015 Aug.
15.	Pozzi E, Ventimiglia E, Fallara G, et al. Haemospermia in the Real- Life Setting: A New High-Risk Stratification. Urology. 171:146-151, 2023 01.
16.	Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340-51.
17.	Kilic M, Coskun B, Vural M, Musaoglu A, Esen T, Balbay MD. The clinical impact of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System classification in patients with haemospermia undergoing multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate. Andrologia. 53(5):e14041, 2021 Jun.
18.	American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
19.	Satchi M, Katelaris A, Smekal M, Alnajjar HM, Muneer A. Detection rates of urogenital cancers and benign pathology in men presenting with hematospermia. Current Urology. 16(1):44-49, 2022 Mar.
20.	Hakam N, Lui J, Shaw NM, et al. Hematospermia is rarely associated with urologic malignancy: Analysis of United States claims data. Andrology. 10(5):919-925, 2022 07.
21.	Torigian DA, Ramchandani P. Hematospermia: imaging findings. [Review] [199 refs]. Abdom Imaging. 32(1):29-49, 2007 Jan-Feb.
22.	Furuya S, Masumori N, Takayanagi A. Natural history of hematospermia in 189 Japanese men. International Journal of Urology. 23(11):934-940, 2016 11.
23.	Zhang W, Xiao G, Qin S, et al. An Innovative Technique of Transurethral Seminal Vesiculoscopy with Ultrasonic Lithotripter for Severe, Persistent Hematospermia. Journal of Endourology. 31(12):1277-1282, 2017 12.
24.	Efesoy O, Cayan S, Asci R, Orhan I, Yaman O. Hematospermia is rarely related to genitourinary cancer: lessons learned from 15 years of experience with 342 cases. International Journal of Impotence Research. 33(6):627-633, 2021 Sep.Int J Impot Res. 33(6):627-633, 2021 Sep.
25.	Ahmad I, Krishna NS. Hemospermia. [Review] [49 refs]. J Urol. 177(5):1613-8, 2007 May.
26.	Marcal LP, Surabhi VR, Ramani NS, Katabathina VS, Paspulati RM, Prasad SR. Mesenchymal Neoplasms of the Prostate and Seminal Vesicles: Spectrum of Disease with Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics. 42(2):417-432, 2022 Mar-Apr.
27.	Suh Y, Gandhi J, Joshi G, et al. Etiologic classification, evaluation, and management of hematospermia. [Review]. Translational Andrology & Urology. 6(5):959-972, 2017 Oct.
28.	Besler MS, Gokhan MB, Olcucuoglu E, Ozdemir FAE. Shear wave elastography for the evaluation of testicular salvage after testicular torsion. Andrologia. 54(11):e14565, 2022 Dec.
29.	Miao C, Liang C, Wang Y, et al. The management and composition of symptomatic seminal vesicle calculi: aetiological analysis and current research. BJU International. 125(2):314-321, 2020 02.
30.	Catania R, Dasyam N, Furlan A, Borhani AA. Cross-sectional imaging of seminal vesicles and vasa deferentia. [Review]. Abdominal Radiology. 45(7):2049-2062, 2020 07.
31.	Gupta RT, Kalisz K, Khatri G, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Onset Flank Pain-Suspicion of Stone Disease (Urolithiasis). J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S315-S28.
32.	Akin O, Woo S, Oto A, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pretreatment Detection, Surveillance, and Staging of Prostate Cancer: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S187-S210.
33.	Chen R, Wang L, Sheng X, et al. Transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy for recurrent hemospermia: experience from 419 cases. Asian Journal of Andrology. 20(5):438-441, 2018 Sep-Oct.
34.	Chen WK, Yu DD, Chen ZX, et al. Transurethral seminal vesiculoscopy for intractable hematospermia: experience from 144 patients. BMC Urology. 21(1):48, 2021 Mar 27.
35.	Christodoulidou M, Parnham A, Nigam R. Diagnosis and management of symptomatic seminal vesicle calculi. [Review]. Scandinavian Journal of Urology. 51(4):237-244, 2017 Aug.
36.	Dell'Atti L. Ultrasound detection of prostatic calculi as a parameter to predict the appearance of hematospermia after a prostate biopsy. International Braz J Urol. 43(6):1136-1143, 2017 Nov-Dec.
37.	National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on National Statistics; Committee on Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. In: Becker T, Chin M, Bates N, eds. Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2022.
38.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.