4.2 Article

Small, superficial, indeterminate soft-tissue lesions as suspected sarcomas: is primary excision biopsy suitable?

Journal

SKELETAL RADIOLOGY
Volume 46, Issue 7, Pages 919-924

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00256-017-2635-4

Keywords

Superficial; Soft-tissue sarcoma; Excision biopsy; Benign soft-tissue tumour; Non-neoplastic soft-tissue mass

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Suspected soft-tissue sarcomas are typically investigated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with a view to planning image-guided core needle biopsy for confirmation of the histological diagnosis. Indeterminate superficial lesions may be small and therefore potentially difficult to biopsy safely, such lesions possibly being more amenable to primary excision biopsy. The aim of this study is to determine the suitability of this practice in the setting of a specialist sarcoma service. All patients referred over a 12-month period to the sarcoma service with a small (< 3-cm), indeterminate, superficial soft-tissue mass according to MRI criteria, or a small lesion of the hand or foot deemed unsafe for percutaneous biopsy, and who underwent primary excision biopsy were included. The histology results were categorized into neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions, and assessed for resection completeness. Fifty-eight patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria from all patients referred to the sarcoma service in a 12-month period. Of these, 42 out of 58 (72.4%) had benign neoplasms, 4 out of 58 (6.9%) had malignant tumours, 2 out of 58 (3.4%) an intermediate grade lesion, while 10 out of 58 (17.2%) were non-neoplastic. All 4 malignant lesions were completely excised at the time of excision biopsy. Primary excision biopsy of small, indeterminate soft-tissue masses within the setting of a specialist sarcoma service is a suitable management option. Only a small proportion of small superficial soft-tissue lesions with indeterminate MRI features are malignant tumours.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available