Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterisation of deep soft tissue masses: a prospective study.

PURPOSE

To investigate the accuracy of ultrasound in characterising the type of mass and likelihood of malignancy in deep soft tissue masses.

METHODS

Five hundred seventy-nine deep soft tissue masses were prospectively studied by ultrasound. Masses (n = 137) with prior MRI or CT were not included. Following ultrasound examination, the likely nature of the mass as well as the confidence of the reporting radiologist ('fully confident' versus 'not fully confident') about the ultrasound diagnosis was recorded. Clinical and ultrasound diagnoses were compared with the histological diagnosis which was available in 134 (23%) of the 579 masses.

RESULTS

Compared with histology, clinical and ultrasound accuracy for characterising the type of mass were 47% and 88% respectively when all differential diagnoses were considered. The radiologist was fully confident regarding the type of 436 (75%) of 579 masses and, in this setting, for those cases that could be compared with histology, diagnostic accuracy was 96%. For the remaining masses, where the radiologist was not fully confident, accuracy compared with histology was 58% for the first differential diagnosis and 80% for all differential diagnoses. For identifying malignancy, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 97%, 58%, 67%, and 99% respectively. Ultrasound alone was considered sufficient for diagnostic workup in over half of all deep soft tissue masses.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound is useful at characterising and recognising malignancy in deep soft tissue masses. Provided local practice patterns are favourable, ultrasound may be considered a first-line investigation in the diagnostic workup of deep soft tissue masses.

KEY POINTS

• In three-quarters of cases, one can be fully confident about characterising the nature of deep soft tissue masses on ultrasound and, for those fully confident cases that could be compared with histology, the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound was 96%. • Ultrasound can correctly recognise nearly all malignant deep soft tissue masses but some benign masses will also be considered possibly malignant. • Ultrasound alone was considered sufficient for imaging workup in over half of deep soft tissue masses.