ArticleSkeletal radiology2025
Evaluating shear wave elastography for differentiating lipomas from low to intermediate grade liposarcomas: is it reproducible and reliable?
Article in Skeletal radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance and clinical utility of shear-wave elastography in musculoskeletal soft-tissue tumors: a systematic review.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Shear Wave Elastography in Musculoskeletal Imaging: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Multiparametric Ultrasound in the Differential Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Tumors: A Comprehensive Review.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate if imaging findings and shear wave elastography (SWE) can differentiate between lipoma and low-to-intermediate grade liposarcoma and to assess for SWE reproducibility across different manufacturer machines. MATERIALS AND
methodsConsecutive patients referred for lipomatous soft tissue mass biopsy prospectively underwent B-mode ultrasound (US), SWE on two machines (LOGIQ-E9 and SSI-Aixplorer), and MRI. Three musculoskeletal radiologists independently scored images and gave an assessment of malignancy on a four-point scale. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated with kappa statistic (US/US + MRI) and ICC (SSI-Aixplorer velocity/stiffness; cross-machine comparisons). Diagnostic utility of shear wave velocity (SWV) was evaluated using area under receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve against pathology.
resultsAmong 269 patients (mean age 58.8 ± 15.7 years, 34.6% (93/269) female), 22% (59/269) of lesions were malignant. Inter-reader agreement on SSI-Aixplorer was good for velocity and stiffness with ICC 0.87 (95% CI 0.75-0.94) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.97) respectively. Agreement between machines was moderate for velocity and stiffness with ICC 0.62 (95% CI 0.53-0.69) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.58-0.73) respectively. SWV poorly predicted malignancy (AUROC 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.65), and failed to differentiate benign from malignant lipomatous tumours at previously defined 2.02 m/s threshold, misclassifying 9.5% (4/42) as benign. SWV failed to further stratify radiologist grouped benign/probably benign lesions on US (AUROC 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.68). Using MRI to further stratify lesions classified as benign/probably benign on US with SWV ≤ 2.02 m/s had a sensitivity of 61.8% and specificity of 80.2%.
conclusionSWE did not enhance diagnostic accuracy in differentiating lipoma from low-to-intermediate grade liposarcoma and lacked reproducibility across different machines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.