Sonographic Differentiation Between XXXX and @entity3292 in the Musculoskeletal System.

@entity808 @entity3292 @entity5
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine key features and define a strategy for differentiation between @entity808 and @entity3292 using sonography. METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at our hospital, and informed consent was waived. We reviewed sonograms of pathologically proven @entity808 and @entity3292 of the extremities and body wall. On grayscale images, @entity5 were evaluated on the basis of their size, maximum-to-minimum diameter ratio, shape, contour, margin, location, encapsulation, echogenicity, echo texture, cystic changes, presence of intratumoral calcifications, presence of a target sign, and presence of an entering or exiting nerve. If an entering or exiting nerve was identified, the @entity5 transition were characterized. On color Doppler images, the presence and amount of vascularity were evaluated. Student t tests were used for analysis of continuous variables (size, maximum-to-minimum diameter ratio, and age);   (2) and Fisher exact tests were used for analysis of categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 146 pathologically proven @entity5 , including 115 @entity808 and 31 @entity3292 of the extremities and body wall, were included. The maximum diameter, maximum-to-minimum diameter ratio, contour, @entity5 transition, and vascularity were significantly different in @entity808 versus @entity3292 (P < .05), and a lobulated contour, fusiform shape, and hypovascularity of @entity3292 could be helpful for differentiation when a prediction model is considered. The nerve- @entity5 position, nerve- @entity5 transition, and maximum-to-minimum diameter ratio were also significantly different between groups (P < .05) and thus could be useful for differentiation of @entity5 . CONCLUSIONS: Sonographic findings are helpful in differentiating between @entity808 and @entity3292 .
