Accuracy of Ultrasound of Musculoskeletal Soft-Tissue Tumors

Bui-Mansfield, Liem T.; Chen, Dillon C.; O’Brien, Seth D.

doi:10.2214/ajr.14.13335

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…MR imaging has a role in the assessment of knee joint but it is expensive [7][8][9][10]. Ultrasound is becoming more popular in the evaluation of different musculoskeletal abnormalities such as different rheumatic disease, soft tissue lesions, and joints [10][11][12][13][14]. Few studies discuss the role of ultrasound in knee joint [15][16][17] as well as ultrasound findings in patients with knee osteoarthritis [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound of knee osteoarthritis: interobserver agreement and correlation with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis

Razek

El-Basyouni

2015

Clin Rheumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this work was to assess the reproducibility of ultrasound findings of knee osteoarthritis and to correlate ultrasound findings with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Prospective study was conducted upon 80 patients (56 F, 24 M; mean age 57 years) with primary osteoarthritis of knee joint. All patients underwent clinical assessment with calculation of WOMAC and high-resolution ultrasound of the knee joint. The ultrasound images were analyzed for cartilage thinning, osteophytes, synovial effusion, synovial proliferation, popliteal cyst, and meniscal protrusion. Image analysis was performed by two readers and linear regression analysis was used to determine association of ultrasound findings with WOMAC. There was excellent inter-observer agreement of both readers for cartilage thinning (k = 0.99, P = 0.001), osteophytes (k = 0.94, P = 0.001), synovial effusion (k = 0.98, P = 0.001), synovial thickening (k = 0.96, P = 0.001), popliteal cyst (k = 1.00, P = 0.001), and meniscal protrusion (k = 0.86, P = 0.001). There was significant association of WOMAC with cartilage changes (t = 3.406, 3.302, P = 0.001), osteophytes (t = 3.841, 3.006, P = 0.001), and synovial effusion (t = 4.140 and 2.787, P = 0.05) of both readers. We concluded that ultrasound is a reproducible method for assessment of knee osteoarthritis and well correlated with WOMAC.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound of knee osteoarthritis: interobserver agreement and correlation with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis

Razek

El-Basyouni

2015

Clin Rheumatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a study of use of US in evaluation of 4338 predominantly skin lesions, Wortsman and Wortsman (53) found that more than 98% were benign, demonstrating a diagnostic accuracy of 97%. The authors of this study, and we suspect most radiologists, would agree that non-US specialists lack the expertise to achieve such accuracy; however, these results certainly serve to emphasize the potential of this imaging method in evaluation of superficial lesions (54,55). tion of the fundamental concepts of imaging will maximize the diagnostic utility of imaging studies to optimize diagnosis and staging.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Imaging of Soft-Tissue Musculoskeletal Masses: Fundamental Concepts

Kransdorf¹,

Murphey²

2016

RadioGraphics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiologic evaluation of musculoskeletal soft-tissue masses has changed dramatically with the continued improvements in imaging technology. The integration of advanced imaging has provided the radiologist with a wide range of assessment tools, but as with all powerful arsenals, selection and application of the appropriate imaging method can be problematic. Although the choices available for imaging evaluation of musculoskeletal masses have changed dramatically, the basic objectives of this assessment have remained constant: diagnosis and staging. The basic principles for evaluating musculoskeletal soft-tissue masses and achieving these objectives have not changed. This article addresses application of the current imaging methods to assessment of soft-tissue musculoskeletal masses, emphasizing fundamental concepts. We do not intend to provide a comprehensive review of imaging techniques, but rather to provide a useful review of the concepts needed to select the appropriate initial imaging method, magnetic resonance (MR) imaging field of view, MR imaging sequences, contrast material requirements, and rapid image acquisition techniques. We also address use of the new quantitative techniques of chemical shift and diffusion-weighted imaging. Finally, we review the current uses of computed tomography and ultrasonography. Although the choices available for imaging evaluation of musculoskeletal masses have changed dramatically within the past decade, appropriate application of the fundamental concepts of imaging will maximize the diagnostic utility of imaging examinations. RSNA, 2016.

show abstract

“…The high accuracy has been attributed to the high pretest probability of the superficial mass as being benign, since benign masses far outnumber malignant masses. US is not only operator dependent but also needs a radiologist experienced in sonography to correctly interpret the findings (28)(29)(30). US is the preferred modality to guide a biopsy (28).…”

Section: Ultrasound (Us)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Imaging of soft tissue sarcomas

Patel¹,

Matcuk²

2018

Chin. Clin. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Soft tissue sarcomas are rare and a heterogeneous group of neoplasms. Over the years imaging has played a crucial role in the initial staging, monitoring response to chemotherapy, and surveillance for recurrence. In the era of rapidly evolving individualized treatment due to evolving chemotherapies, increasing demand has been placed on the role of imaging in the management of this heterogeneous group. The rapidly evolving technologies in imaging are trying to keep up with the challenge, with development of newer strategies and hybrid imaging. However, many of these newer technologies are either not available or too costly, even in advanced countries, and hence their exact role remains uncertain. Due to this, and the vast diversity of sarcomas, the imaging appearance and management strategies vary and there is no universally accepted algorithm for the role of individual imaging technologies. The basic imaging techniques; however, remain the same, with these newer techniques and strategies vying for their roles in management. We review current imaging techniques and their role in the management of soft tissue sarcomas.

show abstract

Accuracy of Ultrasound of Musculoskeletal Soft-Tissue Tumors

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Ultrasound of knee osteoarthritis: interobserver agreement and correlation with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis

Ultrasound of knee osteoarthritis: interobserver agreement and correlation with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis

Imaging of Soft-Tissue Musculoskeletal Masses: Fundamental Concepts

Imaging of soft tissue sarcomas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About