Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study

Objective To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound in defining the specific nature of superficial soft tissue masses as well as determining malignancy. Materials and method Eight hundred twenty-three superficial soft tissue masses were prospectively evaluated with ultrasound by one of fi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Skeletal radiology 2020-06, Vol.49 (6), p.883-892
Hauptverfasser: Hung, Esther H. Y., Griffith, James F., Yip, Stefanie W. Y., Ivory, Marina, Lee, Jeremiah C. H., Ng, Alex W. H., Tong, Cina S. L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 892
container_issue 6
container_start_page 883
container_title Skeletal radiology
container_volume 49
creator Hung, Esther H. Y.
Griffith, James F.
Yip, Stefanie W. Y.
Ivory, Marina
Lee, Jeremiah C. H.
Ng, Alex W. H.
Tong, Cina S. L.
description Objective To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound in defining the specific nature of superficial soft tissue masses as well as determining malignancy. Materials and method Eight hundred twenty-three superficial soft tissue masses were prospectively evaluated with ultrasound by one of five experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. The radiologist at the time of examination provided one to three specific differential diagnoses and the perceived level of confidence with regard to each diagnosis. Clinical and ultrasound diagnoses were compared with the histological diagnosis to determine accuracy. Tumor malignancy was determined by histology or clinical/imaging follow-up. Results Histological correlation was present for 219 (26.6%) of the 823 masses. Compared with histology, the accuracy of clinical and ultrasound examination for determining specific tumor type was 25.6% and 81.2% respectively considering all differential diagnoses provided. Radiologists were “fully confident” with the ultrasound diagnosis in 585 (71.1%) of 823 masses overall. In this setting, when compared with histology, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 95.5%. When the radiologist was “not fully confident,” accuracy was 41.3% for the first differential diagnosis and 60.9% for all differential diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy improved with increasing radiologist experience. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound for identifying malignant tumor were 93.3%, 97.9%, 45.2%, and 99.9% respectively. Conclusions One can be “fully confident” at characterizing over two-thirds of superficial soft tissue masses based on ultrasound appearances and, in this setting, diagnostic accuracy is very high. Ultrasound examination is also highly accurate at discriminating benign from malignant superficial soft tissue masses.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00256-019-03365-z
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2333603049</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A731359848</galeid><sourcerecordid>A731359848</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e31bdbb816a57bf65df16e915df373f372835305c4ee8e01fb46cbd884d0b12f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUuLFDEUhYMoTjv6B1xIwI2bGvOulLtmGB8w4EbXIZW6mclQVWnzELp_vWl7dFBEQriQ-53DzT0IvaTkghLSv82EMKk6QoeOcK5kd3iENlRw1jGq6GO0IVyJjnGhz9CznO8IoX0v1VN0xulAiKR0g2DrXE3W7XH0uM4l2RzrOuGw4nIL2N3a1iyQwsGWENcjlesOkg8u2Bnn6AsuIecKuNQlpvwOW7xLMe_AlfAdcC512j9HT7ydM7y4r-fo6_urL5cfu-vPHz5dbq87JwQrHXA6TuOoqbKyH72Sk6cKBtoq73m7THPJiXQCQAOhfhTKjZPWYiIjZZ6fozcn3zbBtwq5mCVkB_NsV4g1G8bbnggnYmjo67_Qu1jT2qZr1MCY1lyoB-rGzmDC6mPbkDuamm3PKZeDFrpRF_-g2plgCS6u4EN7_0PATgLXNpUTeLNLYbFpbygxx2zNKVvTsjU_szWHJnp1P3EdF5h-S36F2QB-AnJrrTeQHr70H9sfuVavQg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2392288346</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Hung, Esther H. Y. ; Griffith, James F. ; Yip, Stefanie W. Y. ; Ivory, Marina ; Lee, Jeremiah C. H. ; Ng, Alex W. H. ; Tong, Cina S. L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hung, Esther H. Y. ; Griffith, James F. ; Yip, Stefanie W. Y. ; Ivory, Marina ; Lee, Jeremiah C. H. ; Ng, Alex W. H. ; Tong, Cina S. L.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound in defining the specific nature of superficial soft tissue masses as well as determining malignancy. Materials and method Eight hundred twenty-three superficial soft tissue masses were prospectively evaluated with ultrasound by one of five experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. The radiologist at the time of examination provided one to three specific differential diagnoses and the perceived level of confidence with regard to each diagnosis. Clinical and ultrasound diagnoses were compared with the histological diagnosis to determine accuracy. Tumor malignancy was determined by histology or clinical/imaging follow-up. Results Histological correlation was present for 219 (26.6%) of the 823 masses. Compared with histology, the accuracy of clinical and ultrasound examination for determining specific tumor type was 25.6% and 81.2% respectively considering all differential diagnoses provided. Radiologists were “fully confident” with the ultrasound diagnosis in 585 (71.1%) of 823 masses overall. In this setting, when compared with histology, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 95.5%. When the radiologist was “not fully confident,” accuracy was 41.3% for the first differential diagnosis and 60.9% for all differential diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy improved with increasing radiologist experience. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound for identifying malignant tumor were 93.3%, 97.9%, 45.2%, and 99.9% respectively. Conclusions One can be “fully confident” at characterizing over two-thirds of superficial soft tissue masses based on ultrasound appearances and, in this setting, diagnostic accuracy is very high. Ultrasound examination is also highly accurate at discriminating benign from malignant superficial soft tissue masses.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0364-2348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-2161</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00256-019-03365-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31900511</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Comparative analysis ; Confidence ; Diagnosis ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Diagnostic systems ; Differential diagnosis ; Evaluation ; Female ; Histology ; Humans ; Imaging ; Male ; Malignancy ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Nuclear Medicine ; Orthopedics ; Pathology ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prospective Studies ; Radiology ; Scientific Article ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms - pathology ; Soft tissues ; Tumors ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography - methods ; Ultrasound</subject><ispartof>Skeletal radiology, 2020-06, Vol.49 (6), p.883-892</ispartof><rights>ISS 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Springer</rights><rights>ISS 2020.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e31bdbb816a57bf65df16e915df373f372835305c4ee8e01fb46cbd884d0b12f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e31bdbb816a57bf65df16e915df373f372835305c4ee8e01fb46cbd884d0b12f3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5206-9382</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00256-019-03365-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00256-019-03365-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31900511$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hung, Esther H. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffith, James F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yip, Stefanie W. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ivory, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jeremiah C. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Alex W. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Cina S. L.</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study</title><title>Skeletal radiology</title><addtitle>Skeletal Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Skeletal Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound in defining the specific nature of superficial soft tissue masses as well as determining malignancy. Materials and method Eight hundred twenty-three superficial soft tissue masses were prospectively evaluated with ultrasound by one of five experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. The radiologist at the time of examination provided one to three specific differential diagnoses and the perceived level of confidence with regard to each diagnosis. Clinical and ultrasound diagnoses were compared with the histological diagnosis to determine accuracy. Tumor malignancy was determined by histology or clinical/imaging follow-up. Results Histological correlation was present for 219 (26.6%) of the 823 masses. Compared with histology, the accuracy of clinical and ultrasound examination for determining specific tumor type was 25.6% and 81.2% respectively considering all differential diagnoses provided. Radiologists were “fully confident” with the ultrasound diagnosis in 585 (71.1%) of 823 masses overall. In this setting, when compared with histology, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 95.5%. When the radiologist was “not fully confident,” accuracy was 41.3% for the first differential diagnosis and 60.9% for all differential diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy improved with increasing radiologist experience. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound for identifying malignant tumor were 93.3%, 97.9%, 45.2%, and 99.9% respectively. Conclusions One can be “fully confident” at characterizing over two-thirds of superficial soft tissue masses based on ultrasound appearances and, in this setting, diagnostic accuracy is very high. Ultrasound examination is also highly accurate at discriminating benign from malignant superficial soft tissue masses.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Differential diagnosis</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Histology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Malignancy</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Scientific Article</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Soft tissues</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><issn>0364-2348</issn><issn>1432-2161</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUuLFDEUhYMoTjv6B1xIwI2bGvOulLtmGB8w4EbXIZW6mclQVWnzELp_vWl7dFBEQriQ-53DzT0IvaTkghLSv82EMKk6QoeOcK5kd3iENlRw1jGq6GO0IVyJjnGhz9CznO8IoX0v1VN0xulAiKR0g2DrXE3W7XH0uM4l2RzrOuGw4nIL2N3a1iyQwsGWENcjlesOkg8u2Bnn6AsuIecKuNQlpvwOW7xLMe_AlfAdcC512j9HT7ydM7y4r-fo6_urL5cfu-vPHz5dbq87JwQrHXA6TuOoqbKyH72Sk6cKBtoq73m7THPJiXQCQAOhfhTKjZPWYiIjZZ6fozcn3zbBtwq5mCVkB_NsV4g1G8bbnggnYmjo67_Qu1jT2qZr1MCY1lyoB-rGzmDC6mPbkDuamm3PKZeDFrpRF_-g2plgCS6u4EN7_0PATgLXNpUTeLNLYbFpbygxx2zNKVvTsjU_szWHJnp1P3EdF5h-S36F2QB-AnJrrTeQHr70H9sfuVavQg</recordid><startdate>20200601</startdate><enddate>20200601</enddate><creator>Hung, Esther H. Y.</creator><creator>Griffith, James F.</creator><creator>Yip, Stefanie W. Y.</creator><creator>Ivory, Marina</creator><creator>Lee, Jeremiah C. H.</creator><creator>Ng, Alex W. H.</creator><creator>Tong, Cina S. L.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-9382</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200601</creationdate><title>Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study</title><author>Hung, Esther H. Y. ; Griffith, James F. ; Yip, Stefanie W. Y. ; Ivory, Marina ; Lee, Jeremiah C. H. ; Ng, Alex W. H. ; Tong, Cina S. L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-e31bdbb816a57bf65df16e915df373f372835305c4ee8e01fb46cbd884d0b12f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Differential diagnosis</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Histology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Malignancy</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Scientific Article</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Soft Tissue Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Soft tissues</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hung, Esther H. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Griffith, James F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yip, Stefanie W. Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ivory, Marina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Jeremiah C. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Alex W. H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tong, Cina S. L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Skeletal radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hung, Esther H. Y.</au><au>Griffith, James F.</au><au>Yip, Stefanie W. Y.</au><au>Ivory, Marina</au><au>Lee, Jeremiah C. H.</au><au>Ng, Alex W. H.</au><au>Tong, Cina S. L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study</atitle><jtitle>Skeletal radiology</jtitle><stitle>Skeletal Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Skeletal Radiol</addtitle><date>2020-06-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>883</spage><epage>892</epage><pages>883-892</pages><issn>0364-2348</issn><eissn>1432-2161</eissn><abstract>Objective To prospectively evaluate the accuracy of ultrasound in defining the specific nature of superficial soft tissue masses as well as determining malignancy. Materials and method Eight hundred twenty-three superficial soft tissue masses were prospectively evaluated with ultrasound by one of five experienced musculoskeletal radiologists. The radiologist at the time of examination provided one to three specific differential diagnoses and the perceived level of confidence with regard to each diagnosis. Clinical and ultrasound diagnoses were compared with the histological diagnosis to determine accuracy. Tumor malignancy was determined by histology or clinical/imaging follow-up. Results Histological correlation was present for 219 (26.6%) of the 823 masses. Compared with histology, the accuracy of clinical and ultrasound examination for determining specific tumor type was 25.6% and 81.2% respectively considering all differential diagnoses provided. Radiologists were “fully confident” with the ultrasound diagnosis in 585 (71.1%) of 823 masses overall. In this setting, when compared with histology, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 95.5%. When the radiologist was “not fully confident,” accuracy was 41.3% for the first differential diagnosis and 60.9% for all differential diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy improved with increasing radiologist experience. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound for identifying malignant tumor were 93.3%, 97.9%, 45.2%, and 99.9% respectively. Conclusions One can be “fully confident” at characterizing over two-thirds of superficial soft tissue masses based on ultrasound appearances and, in this setting, diagnostic accuracy is very high. Ultrasound examination is also highly accurate at discriminating benign from malignant superficial soft tissue masses.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>31900511</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00256-019-03365-z</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5206-9382</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0364-2348
ispartof Skeletal radiology, 2020-06, Vol.49 (6), p.883-892
issn 0364-2348
1432-2161
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2333603049
source MEDLINE; SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Accuracy
Comparative analysis
Confidence
Diagnosis
Diagnosis, Differential
Diagnostic systems
Differential diagnosis
Evaluation
Female
Histology
Humans
Imaging
Male
Malignancy
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Nuclear Medicine
Orthopedics
Pathology
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
Radiology
Scientific Article
Sensitivity and Specificity
Soft Tissue Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Soft Tissue Neoplasms - pathology
Soft tissues
Tumors
Ultrasonic imaging
Ultrasonography - methods
Ultrasound
title Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T05%3A54%3A45IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20ultrasound%20in%20the%20characterization%20of%20superficial%20soft%20tissue%20tumors:%20a%20prospective%20study&rft.jtitle=Skeletal%20radiology&rft.au=Hung,%20Esther%20H.%20Y.&rft.date=2020-06-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=883&rft.epage=892&rft.pages=883-892&rft.issn=0364-2348&rft.eissn=1432-2161&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00256-019-03365-z&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA731359848%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2392288346&rft_id=info:pmid/31900511&rft_galeid=A731359848&rfr_iscdi=true