Soft Tissue Masses

Variant: 1 Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US area of interest	Usually Appropriate	O
Radiography area of interest	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Image-guided fine needle aspiration area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 2 Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Radiography area of interest	Usually Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest	May Be Appropriate	O
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Image-guided fine needle aspiration area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
FDG-PET/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI area of interest without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI area of interest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT area of interest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Image-guided fine needle aspiration area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
FDG-PET/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Variant: 4 Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CT area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	Varies
CT area of interest without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	Varies
US area of interest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Image-guided biopsy area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
Image-guided fine needle aspiration area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies
FDG-PET/CT area of interest	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT area of interest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	Varies

Hillary W. Garner, MD^a, Daniel E. Wessell, MD, PhD^b, Leon Lenchik, MD^c, Shivani Ahlawat, MD^d, Jonathan C. Baker, MD^e, James Banks, MD^f, Jennifer L. Demertzis, MD^g, Bryan S. Moon, MD^h, Jennifer L. Pierce, MDⁱ, Jinel A. Scott, MD, MBA^j, Neema K. Sharda, MD^k, Devaki Shilpa Surasi, MD^l, Michael Temporal, MD^m, Eric Y. Chang, MDⁿ

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (ie, only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (ie, more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
A. Radiography Area of Interest

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
B. US Area of Interest

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
C. US Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
D. MRI Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
F. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
G. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
H. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
I. FDG-PET/CT Area of Interest

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
J. Image-Guided Biopsy Area of Interest

Variant 1: Superficial soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
K. Image-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Area of Interest

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
A. Radiography Area of Interest

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
B. US Area of Interest

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
C. US Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
D. MRI Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
E. MRI Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
F. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
G. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
H. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
I. FDG-PET/CT Area of Interest

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
J. Image-Guided Biopsy Area of Interest

Variant 2: Nonsuperficial (deep) soft tissue mass. Initial imaging.
K. Image-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Area of Interest

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
A. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
B. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
C. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
D. MRI Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
E. MRI Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
F. FDG-PET/CT Area of Interest

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
G. Image-Guided Biopsy Area of Interest

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
H. Image-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Area of Interest

Variant 3: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. Next imaging study.
I. US Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
A. CT Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
B. CT Area of Interest Without and With IV Contrast

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
C. CT Area of Interest Without IV Contrast

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
D. FDG-PET/CT Area of Interest

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
E. Image-Guided Biopsy Area of Interest

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
F. Image-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Area of Interest

Variant 4: Soft tissue mass. Nondiagnostic radiograph and noncontrast-enhanced ultrasound. MRI contraindicated. Next imaging study.
G. US Area of Interest With IV Contrast

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	Roland CL. Soft Tissue Tumors of the Extremity. [Review]. Surg Clin North Am. 100(3):669-680, 2020 Jun.
2.	Rochwerger A, Mattei JC. Management of soft tissue tumors of the musculoskeletal system. [Review]. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 104(1S):S9-S17, 2018 02.
3.	Murphey MD, Kransdorf MJ. Staging and Classification of Primary Musculoskeletal Bone and Soft-Tissue Tumors According to the 2020 WHO Update, From the AJR Special Series on Cancer Staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 217(5):1038-1052, 2021 11.
4.	Roberts CC, Kransdorf MJ, Beaman FD, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Follow-Up of Malignant or Aggressive Musculoskeletal Tumors. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 13(4):389-400, 2016 Apr.
5.	Fletcher C, Mertens F. The WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. WHO Classification of Tumours. Soft Tissue and Bone Tumours. 5th ed: Lyon: IARC Press; 2020.
6.	Mankin HJ, Lange TA, Spanier SS. The hazards of biopsy in patients with malignant primary bone and soft-tissue tumors. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(8):1121-1127.
7.	Mankin HJ, Mankin CJ, Simon MA. The hazards of the biopsy, revisited. Members of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78(5):656-663.
8.	Lazarides AL, Kerr DL, Nussbaum DP, et al. Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremities: What Is the Value of Treating at High-volume Centers? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019;477:718-27.
9.	Casali PG, Abecassis N, Aro HT, et al. Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 29(Suppl 4):iv51-iv67, 2018 10 01.
10.	Gartner L, Pearce CJ, Saifuddin A. The role of the plain radiograph in the characterisation of soft tissue tumours. Skeletal Radiol. 2009;38(6):549-558.
11.	Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD. Imaging of Soft-Tissue Musculoskeletal Masses: Fundamental Concepts. [Review]. Radiographics. 36(6):1931-1948, 2016 Oct.
12.	Aparisi Gomez MP, Errani C, Lalam R, et al. The Role of Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Tumors. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 24(2):135-155, 2020 Apr.
13.	Wagner JM, Rebik K, Spicer PJ. Ultrasound of Soft Tissue Masses and Fluid Collections. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 57(3):657-669, 2019 May.
14.	Gruber L, Gruber H, Luger AK, Glodny B, Henninger B, Loizides A. Diagnostic hierarchy of radiological features in soft tissue tumours and proposition of a simple diagnostic algorithm to estimate malignant potential of an unknown mass. Eur J Radiol. 95:102-110, 2017 Oct.
15.	Jacobson JA, Middleton WD, Allison SJ, et al. Ultrasonography of Superficial Soft-Tissue Masses: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Statement. [Review]. Radiology. 211101, 2022 Apr 12.
16.	Hung EHY, Griffith JF, Yip SWY, et al. Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterization of superficial soft tissue tumors: a prospective study. Skeletal Radiol. 49(6):883-892, 2020 Jun.
17.	Hung EH, Griffith JF, Ng AW, Lee RK, Lau DT, Leung JC. Ultrasound of musculoskeletal soft-tissue tumors superficial to the investing fascia. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(6):W532-40, 2014 Jun.
18.	Goldman LH, Perronne L, Alaia EF, et al. Does Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Diagnostic Ultrasound for Soft Tissue Masses Change Clinical Management? J Ultrasound Med 2021;40:1515-22.
19.	Carra BJ, Bui-Mansfield LT, O'Brien SD, Chen DC. Sonography of musculoskeletal soft-tissue masses: techniques, pearls, and pitfalls. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(6):1281-90, 2014 Jun.
20.	De Marchi A, Prever EBD, Cavallo F, et al. Perfusion pattern and time of vascularisation with CEUS increase accuracy in differentiating between benign and malignant tumours in 216 musculoskeletal soft tissue masses. Eur J Radiol. 84(1):142-150, 2015 Jan.
21.	Gruber L, Loizides A, Luger AK, et al. Soft-Tissue Tumor Contrast Enhancement Patterns: Diagnostic Value and Comparison Between Ultrasound and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 208(2):393-401, 2017 Feb.
22.	Loizides A, Peer S, Plaikner M, Djurdjevic T, Gruber H. Perfusion pattern of musculoskeletal masses using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: a helpful tool for characterisation? Eur Radiol 2012;22:1803-11.
23.	Manaster BJ.. Soft-tissue masses: optimal imaging protocol and reporting. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 201(3):505-14, 2013 Sep.
24.	von Mehren M, Randall RL, Benjamin RS, et al. Soft Tissue Sarcoma, Version 2.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw.. 16(5):536-563, 2018 05.
25.	Sherman CE, O'Connor MI. Musculoskeletal tumor imaging: an orthopedic oncologist perspective. [Review]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol. 17(2):221-6, 2013 Apr.
26.	Wilke BK, Goulding KA, Sherman CE, Houdek MT. Soft Tissue Tumors: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-up from the Orthopedic Oncologist Perspective. Radiol Clin North Am 2022;60:253-62.
27.	Lakkaraju A, Sinha R, Garikipati R, Edward S, Robinson P. Ultrasound for initial evaluation and triage of clinically suspicious soft-tissue masses. Clin Radiol. 64(6):615-21, 2009 Jun.
28.	Griffith JF, Yip SWY, Hung EHY, et al. Accuracy of ultrasound in the characterisation of deep soft tissue masses: a prospective study. Eur Radiol. 30(11):5894-5903, 2020 Nov.
29.	Mayerson JL, Scharschmidt TJ, Lewis VO, Morris CD. Diagnosis and Management of Soft-tissue Masses. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2014;22:742-50.
30.	Subhawong TK, Fishman EK, Swart JE, Carrino JA, Attar S, Fayad LM. Soft-tissue masses and masslike conditions: what does CT add to diagnosis and management? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194(6):1559-1567.
31.	Holz JA, Alkadhi H, Laukamp KR, et al. Quantitative accuracy of virtual non-contrast images derived from spectral detector computed tomography: an abdominal phantom study. Sci Rep 2020;10:21575.
32.	Panicek DM, Gatsonis C, Rosenthal DI, et al. CT and MR imaging in the local staging of primary malignant musculoskeletal neoplasms: Report of the Radiology Diagnostic Oncology Group. Radiology. 1997;202(1):237-246.
33.	van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, et al. Soft-tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy. Radiology. 2004; 233(2):493-502.
34.	Boruah DK, Gogoi B, Patni RS, Sarma K, Hazarika K. Added Value of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Musculoskeletal Tumors Using Sensitivity and Specificity: A Retrospective Study and Review of Literature. Cureus 2021;13:e12422.
35.	Choi YJ, Lee IS, Song YS, Kim JI, Choi KU, Song JW. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI for the differentiation of benign from malignant soft-tissue tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging. 50(3):798-809, 2019 09.
36.	Lee JH, Kim HS, Yoon YC, et al. Characterization of small, deeply located soft-tissue tumors: Conventional magnetic resonance imaging features and apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation between non-malignancy and malignancy. PLoS One 2020;15:e0232622.
37.	Lee SK, Jee WH, Jung CK, Chung YG. Multiparametric quantitative analysis of tumor perfusion and diffusion with 3T MRI: differentiation between benign and malignant soft tissue tumors. Br J Radiol. 93(1115):20191035, 2020 Nov 01.
38.	Bruno F, Arrigoni F, Mariani S, et al. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of soft tissue tumors: techniques and applications. [Review]. Radiol Med (Torino). 124(4):243-252, 2019 Apr.
39.	Dodin G, Salleron J, Jendoubi S, et al. Added-value of advanced magnetic resonance imaging to conventional morphologic analysis for the differentiation between benign and malignant non-fatty soft-tissue tumors. Eur Radiol. 31(3):1536-1547, 2021 Mar.
40.	Saifuddin A, Siddiqui S, Pressney I, Khoo M. The incidence and diagnostic relevance of chemical shift artefact in the magnetic resonance imaging characterisation of superficial soft tissue masses. Br J Radiol. 93(1108):20190828, 2020 Apr.
41.	Pezeshk P, Alian A, Chhabra A. Role of chemical shift and Dixon based techniques in musculoskeletal MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 2017;94:93-100.
42.	Valenzuela RF, Madewell JE, Kundra V, Costelloe CM. Advanced Imaging in Musculoskeletal Oncology: Moving Away From RECIST and Embracing Advanced Bone and Soft Tissue Tumor Imaging (ABASTI)-Part II-Novel Functional Imaging Techniques. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2021;42:215-27.
43.	Bischoff M, Bischoff G, Buck A, et al. Integrated FDG-PET-CT: its role in the assessment of bone and soft tissue tumors. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 130(7):819-27, 2010 Jul.
44.	Shin DS, Shon OJ, Han DS, Choi JH, Chun KA, Cho IH. The clinical efficacy of (18)F-FDG-PET/CT in benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors. Ann Nucl Med. 22(7):603-9, 2008 Aug.
45.	Chen B, Feng H, Xie J, Li C, Zhang Y, Wang S. Differentiation of soft tissue and bone sarcomas from benign lesions utilizing 18F-FDG PET/CT-derived parameters. BMC Medical Imaging. 20(1):85, 2020 07 25.
46.	Benz MR, Dry SM, Eilber FC, et al. Correlation between glycolytic phenotype and tumor grade in soft-tissue sarcomas by 18F-FDG PET. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(8):1174-1181.
47.	Kubo T, Furuta T, Johan MP, Ochi M. Prognostic significance of (18)F-FDG PET at diagnosis in patients with soft tissue sarcoma and bone sarcoma; systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Eur J Cancer. 58:104-11, 2016 May.
48.	Jackson T, Mosci C, von Eyben R, et al. Combined 18F-NaF and 18F-FDG PET/CT in the Evaluation of Sarcoma Patients. Clin Nucl Med. 40(9):720-4, 2015 Sep.
49.	Bamberg F, Dierks A, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Becker CR, Johnson TR. Metal artifact reduction by dual energy computed tomography using monoenergetic extrapolation. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(7):1424-1429.
50.	D'Angelo T, Cicero G, Mazziotti S, et al. Dual energy computed tomography virtual monoenergetic imaging: technique and clinical applications. Br J Radiol 2019;92:20180546.
51.	Peltola EK, Koskinen SK. Dual-energy computed tomography of cruciate ligament injuries in acute knee trauma. Skeletal Radiology. 44(9):1295-301, 2015 Sep.
52.	Reagan AC, Mallinson PI, O'Connell T, et al. Dual-energy computed tomographic virtual noncalcium algorithm for detection of bone marrow edema in acute fractures: early experiences. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2014;38(5):802-805.
53.	Chen H, Jia M, Xu W. Malignant bone tumor intramedullary invasion: evaluation with dual-energy computed tomography in a rabbit model. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(1):70-74.
54.	Sun X, Shao X, Chen H. The value of energy spectral CT in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant soft tissue masses of the musculoskeletal system. Eur J Radiol. 84(6):1105-8, 2015 Jun.
55.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.