Table 2.

Patient follow-up and management in the nonbenign tumor cohort (N=60).

Details on the first management of soft tissue tumors		n (%)
Radiological exama
	Ultrasound echography	22 (37)
	MRIb	34 (57)
	Computed tomography	24 (40)
	None	11 (18)
Results of radiological examsc (N=37)
	Atypical or suspicious aspect of soft tissue tumor	34 (92)
	Homogeneous adipose or typical aspect of “pseudotumor”	3 (8)
Real-life management after discovery of the mass
	Follow-up without radiological exams	5 (8)
	Follow-up with periodic radiological exams	6 (10)
	Biopsy at a nonexpert center	9 (15)
	Surgery outside of an expert center	13 (22)
	Referral to an expert center	27 (45)
Simulated outcomes of Sar’Connect according to first encounter data
	Referral to an expert center	46 (77)
	Imaging (MRI or echography)	13 (22)
	Referral to a nonexpert center	1 (2)
Potential difference of management between real-life observed outcome and Sar’Connect adviced
	Difference	31 (52)
	No difference	29 (48)

^aPatients could have more than one type of radiological exam.

^bMRI: magnetic resonance imaging.

^c37 patients with radiologist conclusion available (11 patients without radiological exam); the suspicious aspect of the soft tissue tumor could contain heterogeneity tissue, anarchic vasculature, enhancement, or thick wall. Pseudotumor included synovial or rheumatism degeneration, vascular or lymphatic malformation, elastofibroma, Morton neuroma, hemangioma, schwannoma, and glomus tumor.

^dDifference in decision was based on groups: optimal decision (a sarcoma referred to expert center) and nonoptimal decision (nonbenign soft tissue tumor referred to a nonexpert center or under watchful waiting only).