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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Skeletal radiology 2020-06, Vol.49 (6), p.883-892 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & 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 |