ArticleBMC cancer2025
Guidelines on superficial soft tissue tumors: should they be revised?
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSarcomas guidelines suggest soft tissue lumps ≥ 5 cm, enlarging, painful or deep are considered malignant unless proven otherwise, should undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and be referred to a specialist centre. Secondary hospitals receive multiple referrers from primary care for workup of subcutaneous, soft tissue lesions ≥ 5 cm with no other high-risk features. Strict adherence to recommendations can lead to overutilisation of limited resources.
methodsWe performed a single centre, retrospective cohort study at St John of God Midland Hospital in Western Australia, Perth on 552 patients investigated for subcutaneous, soft tissue lesions from 24 November 2015 to 30 September 2024.
results83.5% (461/552) of lesions assessed to be overall low-risk were excised locally. 31.9% (147/461) had ≥ 1 high-risk clinical feature but none were atypical or malignant. Histological lipomas were the most common at 83.5% (385/461) followed by angiolipomas at 9.1% (42/461). 0.22% (1/461) lesion showed malignancy and was < 5 cm. Pre-operative ultrasound was most commonly utilised at 56.2% (259/461) with 95.3% sensitivity and 100% specificity for lipomas. MRI was the next most commonly used imaging at 19.1% (88/461). 16.5% (91/552) of lesions had radiological high-risk features. 54.9% (50/91) were managed at our state sarcoma unit. 84% (42/50) underwent excisions with 1 histological pleomorphic sarcoma which had typical clinical and imaging features of malignancy managed with wide excision.
conclusion99.8% (460/461) of patients with low-risk lesions <5cm were benign on histopathology. 50% (1/2) of subcutaneous, soft tissue lesions with malignancy were <5cm. Ultrasonography is highly sensitive (95.3%) and specific (100%) in characterising lipomas. This demonstrates that size alone should not be the sole indicator for escalation in investigation modalities (e.g. MRI), and that clinical assessment combined with ultrasonography is adequate in identifying low-risk lesions suitable for excision at non-sarcoma centres.
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.