Skip to main content
Download PDF

Conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of recurrent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and postoperative scar

BMC Cancer volume 24, Article number: 285 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) has a high recurrence rate after resection. Because of the lack of specific manifestations, recurrent DFSP is easily misdiagnosed as post-resection scar. A few series have reported ultrasound findings of recurrent DFSP; moreover, the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating recurrent DFSP has not been studied.

Objective

We investigated conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of recurrent DFSP and post-resection scar.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the findings of conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in 34 cases of recurrent DFSP and 38 postoperative scars examined between January 2018 and December 2022.

Results

The depth and vascular density of recurrent DFSP were greater than those of postoperative scars (P < 0.05). On gray-scale ultrasound, recurrent DFSP lesions were more commonly irregular, heterogeneous, and hypoechoic, with finger-like projections and ill-defined borders. Postoperative scar was more likely to appear as hypoechoic and homogeneous with well-defined borders (P < 0.05). On color Doppler ultrasound, recurrent DFSP was more likely to feature rich arterial and venous blood flow, and postoperative scar was more likely to display poor blood flow (P < 0.05). On contrast-enhanced ultrasound, recurrent DFSP was more likely to feature heterogeneous hyper-enhancement, and postoperative scar was more likely to display homogeneous iso-enhancement (P < 0.05). Recurrent DFSP presented a higher peak and sharpness than postoperative scar (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound produced distinct features of recurrent DFSP and post-resection scar, which could improve the accuracy of differential diagnosis.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is a rare, low- to intermediate-grade sarcoma that appears as an asymptomatic, red-pink, indurated plaque growing into multiple nodules over a period of time [1]. In the early stages of DFSP, lesions are small in size and limited to the dermal layer. With progression, the tumor tends to invade deep tissue, muscle, and even bone, complicating the complete removal of the tumor and leading to a high recurrence rate after surgery [2, 3].

DFSP has nonspecific characteristics and can easily be mistaken for other superficial masses such as epidermal cysts, lipoma, and dermatofibroma. In a retrospective study involving 214 cases [4], more than half of patients with DFSP experienced one or more misdiagnoses, which may lead to recurrence after local excision. Because of the lack of specific characteristics, recurrent DFSP is easily misdiagnosed as post-resection scar in the early stage and must be definitively diagnosed according to imaging and pathology.

Ultrasound (US) examination is a rapid, accessible, and inexpensive first-line modality for evaluating cutaneous and subcutaneous mass lesions. It provides valuable information regarding diagnosis of DFSP, assessment of lesion extent, and monitoring of response to therapy. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is widely used in clinical diagnosis of abdominal and superficial organ tumors and in differentiation of benign from malignant tumors [5, 6]. There have been several reports on the US features of DFSP [7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. In addition, two reports [14, 15] found that CEUS provided a new method for locating and predicting the size of DFSP tumors, and CEUS displayed higher concordance than US with histology regarding maximum diameter and depth [15].

In this study, we present the conventional US and CEUS findings for recurrent DFSP and post-resection scar, and the utility of each modality in differential diagnosis, with the aim of better determining DFSP recurrence.

Materials and methods

Patients

The authors’ institutional review board approved the retrospective collection and analysis of data, and the study protocol was approved by the ethics committee (2017-451-T3347). The requirement for patient informed consent was waived due to the study’s retrospective design.

We retrieved and analyzed the preoperative ultrasonographic data for 34 recurrent DFSPs (patients with a negative pathological margin at the last surgery) and 38 post-resection scars (patients with DFSP post-resection at our institution) evaluated between January 2018 and December 2022. Diagnoses of DFSP were pathologically confirmed, and postoperative scars were confirmed by follow-up of more than 1 year. Items reviewed in the medical records of each patient included age, sex, clinical presentation, onset, and lesion location. The patient follow-up intervals ranged from 6 months to 2 years (mean, 1 year).

US examination

Ultrasonography was performed before treatment using the GE Voluson E8 (GE Healthcare, Austria) and MyLab Class C (Esaote, Genoa, Italy), with a broadband (9–14 MHz) linear transducer. The lesions were evaluated using conventional US (gray-scale, color Doppler) and CEUS. Imaging assessment of all patients was performed by two US specialists with 5 years of experience who were blinded to histopathological findings; a consensus was then reached.

On gray-scale US images, the lesion size, depth (when extended field-of-view US was inadequate to measure lesion size), echotexture (homogeneous or heterogeneous), echogenicity compared with adjacent muscle (hyperechoic, isoechoic, hypoechoic, mixed hyper- and hypoechoic), and margins (well-defined or ill-defined) were evaluated. In color Doppler US, the B-mode display was overlaid with additional color pixels to assess the presence and features of blood flow at a given time. Color velocity imaging was performed using a constant velocity scale (± 6 cm/s) [16]. Vessel density was estimated by counting the number of vessels per square centimeter outlined on color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI) [17]. The CDFI diagnostic criteria are as follows: Adler 0, no vascularization; Adler 1, vascularization not rich; and Adler 2 or 3, rich vascularization [18]. Arteriovenous spectrum and blood flow velocity (arterial and venous) were determined using pulse Doppler US.

CEUS was performed using the Esaote MyLab™ Twice ultrasound system (Esaote) equipped with a 7–12 MHz high-energy linear probe. The lesion in question was first examined using conventional US and then with CEUS. A suspension of the contrast agent was obtained by adding 5 mL of physiological saline to SonoVue (Bracco SpA, Milan, Italy). A contrast bolus of 3 mL was injected into the median cubital vein, followed by a 5 mL saline flush. The DICOM dynamic data were then stored. Each contrasted imaging acquisition lasted for at least two continuous minutes, and processing was performed using QontraXt software (Esaote).

On CEUS images, the DFSPs were evaluated for the following characteristics: homogeneity of enhancement, classified as homogeneous or heterogeneous; enhancement intensity (using soft tissue around the lesion as a reference), classified as iso-enhancement, hyper-enhancement, hypo-enhancement, or no enhancement; peak time of contrast enhancement; peak; and sharpness (a small slope of the ascending branch indicates a flat curve, a large slope of the ascending branch indicates a steep curve).

Data analysis

Statistical evaluation was performed using SPSS version 23.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), the Student’s t-test, and the χ2 test were used to analyze the US findings for recurrent DFSP and postoperative scars; statistical significance was set at a P value < 0.05.

Results

Patient characteristics

Clinical data such as age, sex, lesion type, and lesion location are summarized in Table 1. All 34 recurrent DFSP lesions were treated using Mohs micrographic surgery.

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of recurrent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) and post-resection scar
Full size table

US findings

Gray-scale and color Doppler US characteristics are summarized in Table 2. For the maximum diameter, 22 recurrent DFSPs and 13 scars were measured as 31.2 ± 15.3 mm and 17.4 ± 11.5 mm, respectively. Twenty-five recurrent DFSPs and 30 postoperative scars underwent CEUS examination, and 9 postoperative scars showed no entry of contrast agent. CEUS features are detailed in Table 3. Representative sonographic findings for recurrent DFSP and postoperative scar are shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Table 2 Summary of gray-scale and color Doppler ultrasound characteristics of recurrent deep dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) and post-resection scar
Full size table
Table 3 Contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings of recurrent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) and post-resection scar
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

A Recurrent DFSP and post-resection scar with two protrusions in the left shoulder of a 28-year-old woman. B Transverse ultrasonogram (No. 1) revealing a well-defined, hypoechoic, homogeneous, and subcutaneous lesion. C Color Doppler ultrasonogram revealing no blood flow signal. D Transverse ultrasonogram (No. 2) revealing an well-defined, hypoechoic, homogeneous, and subcutaneous lesion. E Color Doppler ultrasonogram revealing rich blood flow signal with vascular densities reaching 3/cm2. F Histology showing a storiform growth pattern and proliferation of vessels (hematoxylin-eosin ×10)

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

A Recurrent DFSP with red nodule in the abdominal wall of a 36-year-old man. B Transverse ultrasonogram revealing a well-defined, hypoechoic, heterogeneous, and subcutaneous lesion. C Color Doppler ultrasonogram revealing rich vascularization with vascular densities reaching 4.5/cm2. D Contrast-enhanced ultrasound revealed the trend that contrast agent enters the lesion from the periphery to the center. E Contrast-enhanced ultrasound revealed heterogeneous hyper-enhancement at peak (the 32th second), with filling defect in the center. F Time intensity curve revealed peak of 34.9 and sharpness of 0.037

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

A Post-resection scar with red protrusion in the left shoulder of a 46-year-old man. B Transverse ultrasonogram revealing a well-defined, hypoechoic, homogeneous, and subcutaneous lesion. C Color Doppler ultrasonogram revealing no blood flow signal. D Contrast-enhanced ultrasound revealed the trend that contrast agent enters the lesion from the bottom. E Contrast-enhanced ultrasound revealed homogeneous hyper-enhancement at peak (the 38th second). F Time intensity curve revealed peak of 19.4 and sharpness of 0.030

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

A Post-resection scar with red protrusion in the abdominal wall of a 41-year-old woman. B Transverse ultrasonogram revealing a well-defined, hypoechoic, homogeneous, and subcutaneous lesion. C Color Doppler ultrasonogram revealing rich blood flow signal. D Contrast-enhanced ultrasound revealed the trend that contrast agent enters the lesion from the bottom. E Contrast-enhanced ultrasound revealed homogeneous hyper-enhancement at peak (the 64th second). F Time intensity curve revealed peak of 39.5 and sharpness of 0.024

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

A A 32-year-old female with recurrent DFSP in the abdominal wall, transverse ultrasonogram revealing an ill-defined, hypoechoic, heterogeneous, and subcutaneous lesion, forming hypoechoic with finger-like projections (arrows). B Color Doppler ultrasonogram revealing rich blood flow signal

Full size image

Discussion

In this study, recurrent DFSP appeared on conventional US as a deep, irregular, heterogeneous, hypoechoic, ill-defined mass with finger-like projections, with rich arterial and venous flow; CEUS revealed heterogeneous hyper-enhancement, high peak and sharpness. Postoperative scars appeared on conventional US as shallow, hypoechoic, homogeneous lesions with well-defined borders and poor blood flow, and CEUS more commonly revealed homogeneous iso-enhancement, low peak and sharpness.

US is the first-line modality for evaluation of soft tissue lesions. One recent study [12] reported that the characteristic gray-scale US findings of DFSP are closely related to its pathological findings, such as marginal infiltration and tumor composition. Additionally, color Doppler techniques can increase the specificity of US by providing a real-time evaluation of vascularity [19], and the evaluation of nodular lesions of the skin [20, 21]. Therefore, US can be used as a routine examination for recurrent DFSP and postoperative scar. One recent study [13] reported the ultrasound findings of 35 recurrent DFSP cases, finding that recurrent DFSP lesions were commonly irregularly shaped, hypo-echo, and hyper-vascular on US images. Our findings were consistent with these. Hypoechoic with finger-like projections, a typical ultrasound manifestation of DFSP [22], was showed in 14.7% (5/34) of our recurrent cases, which was consistent with Zou et al. [13] reported and not very common in recurrent DFSP group.

On pathology [23, 24], DFSP showed high cellularity with slender spindle cells arranged in a distinct storiform pattern, which is consistent with its solid hypoechoic image. Furthermore, DFSP showed tumor cells infiltrating into the surrounding subcutaneous fat, which is consistent with its finger-like projections. Rich vascularization could support the aggressive growth patterns of DFSP, and the hypervascularity of DFSP is consistent with hyperplasia of small blood vessels on pathology [25, 26].

In our study, we found that vascularization could be an important feature distinguishing recurrent DFSP from scars, and CEUS could show microvascular circulation more clearly. The principle of CEUS is the introduction of contrast agent through different pathways to increase contrast within the tissues and improve the imaging of tissues, organs, and lesions [27]. Furthermore, the use of preoperative CEUS to improve the precision of DFSP resection was reported by Ma and in our previous study [14, 15]. The results of our study suggest that CEUS can provide valuable information distinguishing recurrent DFSP from post-resection scars; 30% of postoperative scars showed no entry of contrast agent, and recurrent DFSP was more likely to show heterogeneous and hyper-enhancement relative to normal peripheral soft tissue, which was possibly associated with the presence of necrosis or mucus components, and some vascularization, respectively, in the tumor. Along with increased postoperative time, scar tissue will be accompanied by connective tissue hyperplasia and reduced blood vessel numbers; however the blood supply of recurrent DFSP is relatively abundant. Recurrent DFSP presented a higher peak, which could be related to its higher blood vessel density than that of scars. The higher sharpness of recurrent DFSP could be related to its higher arterial blood flow velocity and rapid accumulation of lesional contrast agent, leading to early high levels of enhancement and a “fast rising” branch. Therefore, CEUS provided more evidence for the differential diagnosis of recurrent DFSP and postoperative scar.

We did not analyze a higher frequency (15 MHz or higher) probes evaluation in our study. In other series, however, high-resolution US is playing a growing role in the assessment of diagnosed melanoma cases and follow up [21]. Others have reported high-frequency transducers offer a remarkable detail of the skin abnormalities of the breast and axilla and superficial breast parenchyma abnormalities [28].

This study has certain limitations. First, although the presence of recurrent DFSP and postoperative scar could be suggested on US, it was difficult to evaluate its precise nature with larger lesions. Second, the present case series constitutes a single-center study with a small sample size; multi-center studies with larger sample sizes are needed for continued research. Third, we did not apply the new microcirculation software (superb vascular imaging, SMI and other). SMI examination is non-invasive and promising technique in the study of dermis abnormalities [29]. In future work, we will continue to collect more cases of DFSP by appropriate use of the SMI.

In conclusion, conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound produced distinct features of recurrent DFSP and post-resection scar, which could improve the accuracy of differential diagnosis.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. Immunohistochemistry data of macrophage markers will be made available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

DFSP:

Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans

US:

Ultrasound

CEUS:

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound

CDFI:

Color Doppler flow imaging

ANOVA:

One-way analysis of variance

References

  1. Llombart B, Serra-Guillen C, Monteagudo C, Lopez Guerrero JA, Sanmartin O. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: a comprehensive review and update on diagnosis and management. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2013;30(1):13–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Serra-Guillen C, Sanmartin O, Llombart B, Nagore E, Deltoro C, Martin I, Borella-Estrada R, Requena C, Martorell-Calatayud A, Cervera J, et al. Correlation between preoperative magnetic resonance imaging and surgical margins with modified Mohs for Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Dermatol Surg. 2011;37(11):1638–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Saiag P, Grob JJ, Lebbe C, Malvehy J, Del Marmol V, Pehamberger H, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(17):2604–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. David MP, Funderburg A, Selig JP, et al. Perspectives of patients with Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans on Diagnostic Delays, Surgical outcomes, and Nonprotuberance[J]. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(8):e1910413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang YX, Wang XM, Kang S, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in qualitative diagnosis of sentinel lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther. 2015;11:697–703.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang YF, Dong TT, Nie F, et al. Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound in the Differential diagnosis and risk stratification of ACR TI-RADS category 4 and 5 thyroid nodules with non-hypovascular.[J]. Front Oncol. 2021;11:662273.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Shin YR, Kim JY, Sung MS, Jung JH. Sonographic findings of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans with pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(2):269–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kau T, Lesnik G, Arnold G, Hausegger KA. Sonography of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the groin. J Clin Ultrasound. 2008;36(8):520–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Djilas-Ivanovic D, Prvulovic N, Bogdanovic-Stojanovic D, Vicko F, Sveljo O, Ivkovic-Kapicl T. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans of the breast: mammographic, ultrasound, MRI and MRS features. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(5):827–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kilian KJ, Ruzicka T, Flaig M, Berking C, Kunte C. Recurrent fibrosarcomatous dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Ultrasound imaging. Hautarzt. 2013;64(7):512–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rodríguez Bandera AI, Moreno Bonilla G, Feito Rodríguez M, Beato Merino MJ, de Lucas LR. Jellyfish-like sonographic pattern can help recognition of dermato- fibrosarcoma protuberans. Report of 3 new cases and review of the literature. Australas J Dermatol. 2019;60(2):e148–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diago A, Llombart B, Serra-Guillen C, Arana E, Guillén C, Requena C, et al. Usefulness of ultrasound in dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and correlation with histopathological findings: a series of 30 cases. Skin Res Technol. 2021;00:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Zou MH, Huang Q, Yang T, Jiang Y, Zhang LJ, Xie Y, et al. Role of ultrasound in the diagnosis of primary and recurrent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. BMC Cancer. 2021;21(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ma C, Sun Y, Yang X, Zhang Q, Zhang C, Cui L. Improving precision of resection by pre-surgery inspections with contrast-enhanced ultrasound for dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Dermatol Ther. 2016;29(6):473–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Xia Gong J, Li A, Ding J, Chen X, Tao P, Xiong, et al. Multimodal ultrasound for preoperative evaluation of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: a series of 40 cases. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:1137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tavelli L, Barootchi S, Majzoub J, et al. Ultrasonographic tissue perfusion analysis at implant and palatal donor sites following soft tissue augmentation: a clinical pilot study. J Clin Periodontol. 2021;48:602–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gong X, Hua C, Xiong P, Li J, Ding A, Lin X, et al. Conventional ultrasonography and elastography for the diagnosis of congenital and infantile hemangiomas. J Dermatol. 2020;47(5):203–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Adler DD, Carson PL, Rubin JM, Quinn-Reid D. Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer: preliminary findings. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990;16(6):553–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Corvino A, Sandomenico F, Corvino F, Campanino MR, Verde F, Giurazza F, Tafuri D, Catalano O. Utility of a gel stand-off pad in the detection of Doppler signal on focal nodular lesions of the skin. J Ultrasound. 2020;23(1):45–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Giovagnorio F, Andreoli C, De Cicco ML. Color Doppler sonography of focal lesions of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. J Ultrasound Med. 1999;18(2):89–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Corvino, Antonio et al. Catalano Fabio,Cipolletta Campanile Anna. Interventional Ultrasound in Dermatology: A Pictorial Overview Focusing on Cutaneous Melanoma Patients.[J].J Ultrasound Med, 2022, 41: 3137–3144.

  22. Catalano, Orlando. Corvino Antonio,Ultrasound of skin cancer: what we need to know.[J].Semin Ultrasound CT MR, 2023, 4:S0887-2171(23)00094-X.

  23. Pack GT, Tabah EJ. Dermato-Fibrosarcoma protuberans. A report of 39 cases. AMA Arch Surg. 1951;62(3):391–411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hao X, Billings S, Wu F, Stultz T, Procop G, Mirkin G, et al. Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans: Update on the diagnosis and treatment. J Clin Med. 2020;9(6):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Serra-Guillén C, Llombart B, Nagore E, Guillén C, Requena C, Kindem S, et al. Histologic features associated with deep invasion in dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016;107(5):414–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Iwasaki T, Yamamoto H, Oda Y. Current update on the Molecular Biology of Cutaneous Sarcoma: Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2019;20(4):29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Gilja OH, Saftoiu A, Bartels E, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: Update 2017 (Long Version). Ultraschall Med. 2018;39:e2–e44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Corvino Antonio,Varelli Carlo,Catalano Fabio et al. Use of High-Frequency Transducers in Breast Sonography. [J].J Pers Med et al. 2022, 27; 12 (12): 1960.

  29. Corvino Antonio V, Carlo C, Giulio C, Fabio C, Orlando. Seeing the unseen with superb microvascular imaging: Ultrasound depiction of normal dermis vessels. J Clin Ultrasound. 2022;50(1):121–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks for the help of Dr Congzhen Qiao for providing language help.

Funding

This study was supported in part by grants from the Cross Research Fund Project of the Ninth People’s Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (JYJC202132), Clinical Research Project of Multi-Disciplinary Team, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (201901), Rare Disease Registration Platform of Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital,Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine (JYHJB202201).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ultrasound, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P. R. China

    Xia Gong, Jia Li, Angang Ding, Jiaxin Zuo & Ping Xiong

  2. Department of Pathology, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P. R. China

    Yamin Rao

  3. Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, P. R. China

    Jun Chen

Authors
  1. Xia Gong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jia Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angang Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiaxin Zuo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yamin Rao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jun Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ping Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Guarantors of the integrity of the entire study, X. G., P. X., J. C.; study concepts/ study design or data acquisition or data analysis/interpretation, X. G., J. L., A. A. D., J. C., X. P.; manuscript drafting or manuscript revision for important intellectual content, X. G., Y. M. R., J. X. Z.; approval of the final version of the submitted manuscript, all authors; literature research, J. L., A. A. D.; manuscript editing, all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jun Chen or Ping Xiong.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or patients’ parents/guardians for use of their clinical data.

Consent for publication

X. G. informed the patients that their clinical and personal details would be published in a journal, and written informed consent for publication was obtained from the patients.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gong, X., Li, J., Ding, A. et al. Conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of recurrent dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans and postoperative scar. BMC Cancer 24, 285 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12885-024-11991-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12885-024-11991-7

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us