XXXX : how useful is evaluation with US?

@entity1 @entity788 @entity353 @entity1087 @entity548 @entity448 @entity9451 @entity1084 @entity158 @entity3
The usefulness of ultrasonography (US) in the evaluation of @entity788 was assessed in 51 @entity1 . Indications for US included @entity1087 (n = 19), @entity158 (n = 16), @entity353 and @entity448 (n = 4), clinically palpable mass (n = 3), @entity548 in the upper gastrointestinal tract (n = 1), and @entity1084 (n = 1). Three @entity1 were investigated because of a previous abnormal US examination; in four the mass was an incidental observation. Sonograms were interpreted without knowledge of results from other procedures. Pancreatic masses were detected in 50 @entity1 . Biliary and @entity788 were seen in 29 and 27 @entity1 , respectively. Liver @entity3 were identified in 16 @entity1 and missed in three that were not detected with either US or computed tomography. Vascular involvement was predicted in 12 @entity1 and missed in four, while lymphadenopathy was seen in 16 and missed in five. Thirty-one cases of unresectable disease were correctly predicted with US. Resectability was not as accurately determined; only seven of 19 "resectable" lesions were successfully removed. US is an effective tool in the detection and preoperative evaluation of @entity9451 .
