Imaging of retroperitoneal sarcoma: research progress
-
摘要:
腹膜后肉瘤(RPS)是起源于腹膜后间隙(包括骶前及盆底间隙)的罕见间叶源性恶性肿瘤,来源复杂,病理类型繁多,生物学行为多样,临床诊治难度大,预后不佳。影像学检查在RPS诊疗体系中扮演着至关重要的角色。然而,不同病理类型的RPS影像学表现存在重叠,使其鉴别诊断颇具挑战,许多患者仍需依赖影像引导下穿刺活检或手术病理以明确诊断。近年来,随着影像学技术的发展与人工智能技术的深入应用,相关研究在基于影像特征无创预测RPS病理分型与分级、评估复发风险等领域取得了一系列进展。本文围绕RPS的诊断与鉴别诊断、疗效评价与预后,对RPS的影像学研究进展进行综述。
Abstract:Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS) is a rare malignant tumor of mesenchymal origin arising from the retroperitoneal space, including the presacral and pelvic floor spaces. RPS is characterized by complex tissue origins, diverse pathological types, and highly variable biological behaviors, which pose significant challenges in clinical diagnosis and treatment and result in a generally poor prognosis. Imaging plays a crucial role in the management of RPS; however, the overlapping imaging features across different pathological subtypes make accurate differential diagnosis challenging. As a result, many patients still require image-guided core needle biopsy or surgical pathology for definitive diagnosis. In recent years, with rapid advancements in imaging technology and the growing application of artificial intelligence, researchers worldwide have made considerable progress in the non-invasive prediction of pathological subtypes and grading, as well as in assessing recurrence risk and predicting survival based on imaging characteristics. This review aims to provide a systematic overview of recent advances in imaging studies of RPS, focusing on diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment response evaluation, and prognosis assessment.
-
软组织肉瘤是起源于脂肪、肌肉、血管等间叶组织的高度异质性恶性肿瘤,包含超过百种病理亚型,发病率约(3.3~4.7)/10万[1-2]。由于其罕见性和复杂性,软组织肉瘤患者在诊断、转诊及治疗过程中常面临显著延迟[3-4]。约15%~20%的软组织肉瘤起源于腹膜后间隙(包括骶前及盆底间隙),称为腹膜后肉瘤(retroperitoneal sarcoma,RPS)[4]。RPS来源复杂,包括脂肪肉瘤、平滑肌肉瘤、纤维肉瘤、恶性周围神经鞘膜瘤、未分化肉瘤、滑膜肉瘤等多种病理类型[5-7]。腹膜后间隙深在的解剖位置与复杂的毗邻结构常导致RPS患者在确诊时已进展至局部晚期,整体预后较四肢躯干部的软组织肉瘤更差,临床诊治也面临更为严峻的挑战[8]。目前国际上多个指南建议RPS由专业且有经验的多学科团队进行综合、规范化诊治[4, 8-11]。
影像学检查在RPS的检出、诊断与鉴别、治疗方案制定、预后评估及随访复查中均发挥着不可或缺的作用[12]。CT是目前腹膜后肿瘤应用最广泛的影像学检查之一[11, 13]。增强CT有助于确定肿瘤的位置、来源、血供情况、浸润范围、边界,以及肿瘤与毗邻大血管和周围脏器的关系等[14]。MRI有较高的分辨率和软组织对比度,是腹膜后肿瘤重要的检查手段,可以精确显示肿瘤的范围及毗邻解剖结构受累情况[15]。PET-CT作为功能性影像检查,可以反映肿瘤不同区域的分化程度及侵袭性的差异,有助于帮助判定穿刺活检的位置,并可应用于肿瘤分期评估和疗效评价,为临床决策提供依据[16]。然而,RPS的影像学诊断也面临一定的困境:不同病理亚型之间常呈现相似影像表现,加之该病罕见,部分医师对其特征认知不足,易导致诊断困难。在临床实践中,许多患者仍需依赖影像引导下穿刺活检或手术切除等有创手段以明确最终病理诊断[17]。
影像组学和深度学习等人工智能技术可以捕捉超出人类视觉感知的影像图像特征并进行深度定量分析,对肿瘤表型进行全面量化[18-21],不但具有无创、安全、快速等优点,还能间接反映肿瘤微观水平基因和蛋白质的变化,在肿瘤的良恶性鉴别、分子分型预测、疗效判断及复发风险预测等方面展示出巨大的潜力[18, 22-23]。本文拟从诊断与鉴别诊断、疗效评价和预后监测方面对RPS的影像学研究进展作一综述。
1 RPS的诊断与鉴别诊断
1.1 RPS与腹膜后良性肿瘤的鉴别诊断
RPS的影像学表现多样,部分缺乏特异性表现,且常与腹膜后良性肿瘤的影像特征存在重叠,增加了鉴别诊断的难度[24-26]。Xu等[27]回顾性分析了340例经病理证实的腹膜后肿瘤患者(良性162例、恶性178例)的术前增强CT图像,构建了年龄、性别、形状、强化程度、血管侵犯和影像组学评分的临床-影像组学模型,该模型对原发性腹膜后肿瘤的良恶性有较好的区分能力,在训练集与测试集中AUC分别为0.923和0.907。
RPS中,脂肪肉瘤是最多见的病理类型,其常见亚型包括高分化脂肪肉瘤、去分化脂肪肉瘤、黏液样脂肪肉瘤和多形性脂肪肉瘤等[28]。肿瘤内脂肪成分的存在是识别脂肪源性肿瘤的关键影像学线索。然而,分化良好的脂肪肉瘤与良性脂肪瘤在影像学表现上常有重叠,致使两者鉴别有时存在困难[16, 29]。鉴于两者在生物学行为及临床治疗策略上具有显著差异,准确的鉴别对指导临床决策具有重要意义。尽管CT与MRI图像中呈现的肿瘤大小、瘤内分隔厚度及瘤内异质性等特征可为腹膜后脂肪瘤与脂肪肉瘤的鉴别诊断提供一定参考,但这些征象的判断常具有一定主观性,且观察者间一致性较低[30-31]。对于鉴别困难者,临床有时需要通过活检等侵入性手段获取组织样本并检测是否有双微体同源基因2(mouse double minute 2,MDM2)扩增对两者进行区分[26, 32]。多个研究团队开发了基于增强CT或MRI的影像组学模型以鉴别脂肪瘤与高分化脂肪肉瘤或非典型脂肪瘤样肿瘤,此类模型灵敏度为68%~100%,特异度为33%~100%[33]。Xu等[34]的研究纳入了3个中心共123例腹膜后高分化脂肪肉瘤患者和44例脂肪瘤患者,提取临床、影像组学和深度学习特征建模,发现结合影像组学和深度学习特征的列线图模型在训练集和外部验证集中对腹膜后脂肪瘤和高分化脂肪肉瘤均有较好的区分效果(在验证集中AUC为0.861,准确度为0.810),优于临床放射学模型和传统影像组学模型。该研究表明,深度学习影像组学特征有望成为腹膜后脂肪瘤和高分化脂肪肉瘤鉴别诊断的影像学标志物。
1.2 不同病理类型RPS的鉴别诊断
脂肪肉瘤是RPS中最常见的病理类型,平滑肌肉瘤位居第二[28]。不同亚型的脂肪肉瘤内脂肪含量存在显著差异,部分去分化脂肪肉瘤甚至在影像学上可不显示典型的脂肪密度或信号[35]。在此类情况下,脂肪肉瘤与其他RPS(尤其是平滑肌肉瘤)的鉴别诊断难度显著增加。Arthur等[36]回顾分析了117例腹膜后脂肪肉瘤与53例腹膜后平滑肌肉瘤患者的增强CT资料,发现约35%的病例在影像报告中未能明确区分病理类型。研究者基于增强CT图像提取影像组学特征及近似影像组学体积分数,构建了影像组学分类模型,并在外部队列(76例脂肪肉瘤、13例平滑肌肉瘤)中进行了验证。结果显示,该模型能有效鉴别腹膜后平滑肌肉瘤与脂肪肉瘤,在验证队列中AUC达0.928;模型在预测肉瘤组织学分级方面亦具有良好效能,验证队列中AUC最高为0.882。该研究不仅验证了影像组学在区分RPS组织学类型与病理分级方面的能力,也为腹膜后肿瘤的诊断与风险分层提供了重要参考。Tirotta等[37]的研究同样证实了CT影像组学具有区分腹膜后平滑肌肉瘤和脂肪肉瘤的潜力。
既往关于腹膜后肿瘤诊断与鉴别诊断的研究多集中于二分类问题,然而这种“非此即彼”的诊断模式与腹膜后肿瘤种类繁多的临床实际不尽相符。此外,腹膜后肿瘤的精确解剖定位对于评估活检安全性、手术可切除性及潜在切除范围至关重要,但现有文献在此方面的探讨尚不充分。为解决上述问题,本团队联合全国11家中心,纳入1 530例腹膜后肿瘤患者,开发并验证了针对原发性腹膜后肿瘤的端到端深度学习诊断模型REMIND[38]。该模型基于医学影像分割框架nnU-Net构建,利用增强CT图像实现了肿瘤自动分割与多类别诊断的一体化输出。在肿瘤分割任务中,模型在训练集、外部验证集及前瞻性验证集中的Dice系数均高于0.70;在诊断分类方面,模型对良恶性肿瘤分类的AUC达0.897,对7种常见亚型(高分化脂肪肉瘤、去分化脂肪肉瘤、淋巴瘤、平滑肌肉瘤、神经鞘瘤、副神经节瘤、节细胞神经瘤)分类的AUC为0.791~0.931。模型的诊断准确率与高年资影像医师(腹部影像诊断经验>10年)相当,并能显著提升中、低年资医师的诊断准确率。该研究表明,人工智能模型能够辅助临床精准勾勒肿瘤范围并提供鉴别诊断参考,不仅有助于提升放射科医师的诊断效率与准确性,也有望协助腹膜后肿瘤的个体化治疗决策。
2 RPS的疗效评价和预后预测
2.1 RPS的疗效评价
RPS的不同组织学亚型在生物学行为、对放化疗的敏感性以及局部复发与远处转移的风险方面均存在差异[28, 39]。基于RPS的异质性,其治疗策略较为复杂,需以手术切除为基础,并综合运用化疗、放疗、靶向治疗、免疫治疗等多种手段[40-41]。目前,学界也在积极开展针对RPS的新辅助化疗、放疗及靶向治疗等综合治疗策略的临床研究[42]。实体瘤疗效评价标准(response evaluation criteria in solid tumors,RECIST)1.1是临床试验和临床实践中评估肿瘤治疗反应的常用依据[43]。研究表明,RPS新辅助治疗后早期影像学评估中出现的疾病进展与患者较差的生存率显著相关,而依据RECIST 1.1判定的部分缓解则与病理中的治疗相关性纤维化反应相符[44]。然而,RECIST 1.1在实际应用中也存在一定局限,该标准仅依赖靶病灶长径的相对变化,难以捕捉在肿瘤体积缩小之前可能发生的早期细胞学改变,如纤维化、坏死等结构变化,而这些改变往往具有重要的临床提示意义[45]。鉴于RPS的罕见性和治疗的复杂性,多部指南推荐患者于专业的肉瘤中心就诊[4, 8, 46-47]。Tirotta等[48]的回顾性研究也支持这一观点。该研究分析了1 878例肉瘤患者的数据,发现相较于低流量中心及非专科中心,在高流量肉瘤诊疗中心(年均诊治≥24例)接受治疗的患者1年和5年总生存率更高。这表明高流量肉瘤诊疗中心凭借其集中的病例经验与多学科协作,能为患者带来明确的生存获益。
2.2 RPS的预后预测
RPS的预后与患者年龄、组织学类型、法国国家抗癌中心联合会(Federation Nationale des Centres de Lutte Contre le Cancer,FNCLCC)病理分级、肿瘤体积、多灶性及手术切除完整性等因素相关,这些因素已被整合至列线图中,并纳入RPS预后预测软件Sarculator,用于评估患者的总生存期与无病生存期[49-51]。然而,Sarculator的应用存在局限:首先,并非所有患者都具备手术条件。其次,对于无法手术的患者,其病理分级通常依赖穿刺活检标本。由于取材的局限性,穿刺活检结果可能无法完全代表肿瘤整体特征,从而导致病理分级被低估,无法真实反映其侵袭性[36, 52]。有研究显示,在高达68%的平滑肌肉瘤病例中,穿刺活检低估了肿瘤的实际病理分级[53]。
影像学检查具有无创、客观的优势,能够展现肿瘤全貌,从而更全面地反映其形态特征与侵袭潜能。若能基于影像学图像对RPS患者进行复发转移风险分层,则有望实现对高危患者的精细化管理和精准干预,从而最终改善患者预后。研究发现,基线影像学图像中瘤体较大、瘤周强化、瘤内坏死、浸润性生长模式、广泛的信号或密度不均匀是软组织肉瘤预后不良的标志[54]。18F-FDG PET/CT能够测量肿瘤的最大标准摄取值(maximum standardized uptake value,SUVmax)、代谢肿瘤体积(metabolic tumor volume,MTV)、总病变糖酵解(total lesion glycolysis,TLG)等参数,为RPS的评价提供客观定量信息,在RPS的病理分级和预后评价方面展示出潜在价值[55]。RPS的SUVmax已被证实与肿瘤的FNCLCC分级、有丝分裂计数和Ki-67指数显著相关,多灶性和复发性RPS的MTV、TLG显著高于单灶性和原发性肿瘤[55-56]。近年来,也有一些研究尝试运用影像组学、深度学习等方法构建预测模型,以期实现RPS风险分层目标[57-60]。Pasquali等[58]研究发现,联合应用CT影像组学特征可提升Sarculator对RPS患者总生存期预测的准确性。Tian等[59]开展了一项基于深度学习的预测模型研究,旨在评估腹膜后平滑肌肉瘤患者术后发生异时性远处转移的风险。该研究纳入了来自2个中心的179例腹膜后平滑肌肉瘤患者,提取其术前增强CT的影像组学特征及深度学习特征并建模。结果表明,深度学习影像组学列线图在训练集与外部验证集中均表现出最优的区分效能,AUC分别为0.939和0.822。Xu等[60]在传统影像组学的基础上进一步分析了肿瘤内异质性(intratumoral heterogeneity,ITH),构建了RPS远处转移风险的预测模型。研究发现,结合了临床放射学变量、ITH特征和深度学习特征的联合模型能有效区分RPS远处转移高风险与低风险患者。这些研究表明,影像组学和深度学习方法有助于术前识别远处转移风险较高的RPS患者,从而为个体化治疗方案与随访策略的制定提供参考。
3 小结与展望
影像学检查是贯穿RPS诊断、治疗与随访全过程的关键手段。在人工智能技术的赋能下,影像学已不再满足于“看见”病灶,而是致力于“读懂”肿瘤,RPS的影像学研究也正朝着更高层次的精准化与智能化方向迈进。当前,影像组学、深度学习等技术在术前无创预测RPS肿瘤组织学类型与病理分级、评估术后远处转移风险及预后等方面已展现出潜力。然而,该领域仍面临多重挑战。人工智能模型高度依赖大规模、高质量且标准化的标注数据。作为罕见肿瘤,RPS亟需通过多中心协作建立统一、开放的影像-临床高质量数据库。此外,现有研究大多基于回顾性分析,缺乏前瞻性验证,模型的泛化能力与临床适用性尚未得到充分证实。同时,深度学习模型固有的“黑箱”特性使其决策过程难以解释,一定程度上限制了其在临床实践中的接受度与应用价值。
未来研究应致力于开发可解释性强的人工智能方法,推动临床信息、影像特征、病理标志物及分子生物学数据的深度融合,以构建可靠的多模态智能诊疗模型。模型需在高质量的前瞻性队列中进行系统验证,以评估其在真实世界中的稳定性、鲁棒性与临床效用。与此同时,应进一步探索模型风险分层结果与具体治疗策略(如手术范围、辅助治疗强度、随访间隔)的精准匹配,并开展基于模型的干预性临床研究,最终实现从风险预测到精准干预的完整闭环,从而为改善患者预后带来新的希望。
-
[1] CORMIER J N, POLLOCK R E. Soft tissue sarcomas[J]. CA A Cancer J Clin, 2004, 54(2):94-109. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.54.2.94. [2] BANSAL A, GOYAL S, GOYAL A, et al. WHO classification of soft tissue tumours 2020: an update and simplified approach for radiologists[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2021, 143: 109937. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109937. [3] FERNÁNDEZ JÁ, GÓMEZ B, DÍAZ-GÓMEZ D, et al. Diagnostic delay in soft tissue sarcomas: a review[J]. Cancers, 2025, 17(11): 1861. DOI: 10.3390/cancers17111861. [4] SARRE LAZCANO C, CARDONA K, CALLEGARO D. ASO practice guidelines series: multidisciplinary management of retroperitoneal sarcomas[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2025, 32(7): 5343-5355. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-025-17284-y. [5] YAMAGATA Y, KOMIYAMA M, IWATA S. Clinical characteristics and management of primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: a literature review[J]. Ann Gastroenterol Surg, 2024, 8(1): 21-29. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12756. [6] 武宇轩, 塔娜, 杜甑衎, 等. 1050例腹膜后占位的病理诊断单中心分析[J]. 海军军医大学学报, 2023, 44(3): 272-277. DOI: 10.16781/j.CN31-2187/R.20220646. [7] HUGGETT B D, CATES J M M. The Vanderbilt staging system for retroperitoneal sarcoma: a validation study of 6857 patients from the National Cancer Database[J]. Mod Pathol, 2019, 32(4): 539-545. DOI: 10.1038/s41379-018-0166-8. [8] HAYES A J, NIXON I F, STRAUSS D C, et al. UK guidelines for the management of soft tissue sarcomas[J]. Br J Cancer, 2025, 132(1): 11-31. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-024-02674-y. [9] DE JUAN FERRÉ A, ÁLVAREZÁLVAREZ R, CASADO HERRÁEZ A, et al. SEOM clinical guideline of management of soft-tissue sarcoma (2020)[J]. Clin Transl Oncol, 2021, 23(5): 922-930. DOI: 10.1007/s12094-020-02534-0. [10] GRONCHI A, MIAH A B, DEI TOS A P, et al. Soft tissue and visceral sarcomas: ESMO-EURACAN-GENTURIS clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up[J]. Ann Oncol, 2021, 32(11): 1348-1365. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.07.006. [11] 中华医学会肿瘤学分会, 中国研究型医院学会腹膜后与盆底疾病专业委员会, 北京医师协会腹膜后肿瘤专科医师分会. 腹膜后肿瘤诊治专家共识(2025版)[J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2025, 40(5): 330-337. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn113855-20250417-00233. [12] 丁玉芹, 石洪成, 季正标. 影像学检查在腹膜后肿瘤诊治中的应用及相关专家共识解读[J]. 外科理论与实践, 2022, 27(6): 511-516. DOI: 10.16139/j.1007-9610.2022.06.06. [13] VON MEHREN M, KANE J M, AGULNIK M, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma, version 2.2022, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology[J]. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw, 2022, 20(7): 815-833. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2022.0035. [14] TURGEON M K, CARDONA K. Retroperitoneal sarcomas[J]. Surg Clin N Am, 2022, 102(4): 601-614. DOI: 10.1016/j.suc.2022.04.004. [15] SARRE-LAZCANO C, DUMITRA S, FIORE M. Pelvic soft tissue sarcomas[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2023, 49(6): 1102-1110. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2022.06.003. [16] AL-DASUQI K, IRSHAID L, MATHUR M. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of primary retroperitoneal neoplasms[J]. Radiographics, 2020, 40(6): 1631-1657. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2020200015. [17] 王坚. 腹膜后肿瘤的病理诊断与鉴别诊断[J]. 外科理论与实践, 2022, 27(6): 500-505. DOI: 10.16139/j.1007-9610.2022.06.04. [18] GUO Y, LI T, GONG B, et al. From images to genes: radiogenomics based on artificial intelligence to achieve non-invasive precision medicine in cancer patients[J]. Adv Sci (Weinh), 2025, 12(2): e2408069. DOI: 10.1002/advs.202408069. [19] HE W, HUANG W, ZHANG L, et al. Radiogenomics: bridging the gap between imaging and genomics for precision oncology[J]. MedComm, 2024, 5(9): e722. DOI: 10.1002/mco2.722. [20] LIU Z, DUAN T, ZHANG Y, et al. Radiogenomics: a key component of precision cancer medicine[J]. Br J Cancer, 2023, 129(5): 741-753. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02317-8. [21] ZHANG C, XU J, TANG R, et al. Novel research and future prospects of artificial intelligence in cancer diagnosis and treatment[J]. J Hematol Oncol, 2023, 16(1): 114. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-023-01514-5. [22] 詹彧鸣, 张翔, 翁山耕. 人工智能在腹膜后肿瘤精准诊疗中的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(4): 371-376. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-392X.2025.04.002. [23] WHYBRA P, ZWANENBURG A, ANDREARCZYK V, et al. The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized convolutional filters for reproducible radiomics and enhanced clinical insights[J]. Radiology, 2024, 310(2): e231319. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.231319. [24] POLAT Y B, GULTEKIN M A, AKCAY A, et al. Beyond the surface: a comprehensive radiological review of primary retroperitoneal neoplasms[J]. Clin Imaging, 2024, 116: 110340. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2024.110340. [25] CZEYDA-POMMERSHEIM F, MENIAS C, BOUSTANI A, et al. Diagnostic approach to primary retroperitoneal pathologies: what the radiologist needs to know[J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2021, 46(3): 1062-1081. DOI: 10.1007/s00261-020-02752-8. [26] PURGINA B, DI BLASI E, COLLINI P, et al. Pathologic assessment of retroperitoneal sarcomas: a position paper by the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2026, 50(4): 455-466. DOI: 10.1097/pas.0000000000002500. [27] XU J, GUO J, YANG H Q, et al. Preoperative contrast-enhanced CT-based radiomics nomogram for differentiating benign and malignant primary retroperitoneal tumors[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(10): 6781-6793. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09686-x. [28] CATUREGLI I, LILLEY E J, FAIRWEATHER M, et al. Retroperitoneal sarcoma (RPS): a systematic review[J]. Curr Oncol Rep, 2025, 27(7): 856-870. DOI: 10.1007/s11912-025-01690-2. [29] SHAABAN A M, REZVANI M, TUBAY M, et al. Fat-containing retroperitoneal lesions: imaging characteristics, localization, and differential diagnosis[J]. Radiographics, 2016, 36(3): 710-734. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2016150149. [30] VOS M, STARMANS M P A, TIMBERGEN M J M, et al. Radiomics approach to distinguish between well differentiated liposarcomas and lipomas on MRI[J]. Br J Surg, 2019, 106(13): 1800-1809. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11410. [31] PRESSNEY I, KHOO M, ENDOZO R, et al. Pilot study to differentiate lipoma from atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma using MR radiomics-based texture analysis[J]. Skeletal Radiol, 2020, 49(11): 1719-1729. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-020-03454-4. [32] VARGAS A C, JOY C, CHEAH A L, et al. Lessons learnt from MDM2 fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis of 439 mature lipomatous lesions with an emphasis on atypical lipomatous tumour/well-differentiated liposarcoma lacking cytological atypia[J]. Histopathology, 2022, 80(2): 369-380. DOI: 10.1111/his.14558. [33] HAIDEY J, LOW G, WILSON M P. Radiomics-based approaches outperform visual analysis for differentiating lipoma from atypical lipomatous tumors: a review[J]. Skeletal Radiol, 2023, 52(6): 1089-1100. DOI: 10.1007/s00256-022-04232-0. [34] XU J, MIAO L, WANG C X, et al. Preoperative contrast-enhanced CT-based deep learning radiomics model for distinguishing retroperitoneal lipomas and well-differentiated liposarcomas[J]. Acad Radiol, 2024, 31(12): 5042-5053. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2024.06.035. [35] MOULIN B, MESSIOU C, CROMBE A, et al. Diagnosis strategy of adipocytic soft-tissue tumors in adults: a consensus from European experts[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2022, 48(3): 518-525. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.10.009. [36] ARTHUR A, ORTON M R, EMSLEY R, et al. A CT-based radiomics classification model for the prediction of histological type and tumour grade in retroperitoneal sarcoma (RADSARC-R): a retrospective multicohort analysis[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2023, 24(11): 1277-1286. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00462-X. [37] TIROTTA F, SCHUT A W, WEMMERS D, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of preoperative CT-based radiomics in primary retroperitoneal sarcoma[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2025, 32(10): 7799-7807. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-025-18040-y. [38] FENG X, ZHANG Q, YANG Y, et al. End-to-end deep learning model for the diagnosis and segmentation of primary retroperitoneal neoplasm: a multicenter cohort study[J]. EClinicalMedicine, 2025, 89: 103498. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2025.103498. [39] SUN S, CARDONA K, TSENG W W. Surgical management of retroperitoneal liposarcoma: opportunities for multimodality treatment, including systemic therapy[J]. Cancer Med, 2025, 14(15): e71129. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.71129. [40] FABBRONI C, JOHNSTON E W, SANFILIPPO R, et al. Management of multifocal and metastatic retroperitoneal sarcoma: an updated consensus approach from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG)[J]. Cancer Treat Rev, 2026, 143: 103086. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2025.103086. [41] VAN HOUDT W J, GRONCHI A. Sarcoma: last year's practice changing papers[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2025, 32(3): 1497-1503. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-024-16540-x. [42] SPALATO-CERUSO M, GHAZZI N E, ITALIANO A. New strategies in soft tissue sarcoma treatment[J]. J Hematol Oncol, 2024, 17(1): 76. DOI: 10.1186/s13045-024-01580-3. [43] EISENHAUER E A, THERASSE P, BOGAERTS J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2009, 45(2): 228-247. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026. [44] VAN DER BURG S J C, FIORE M, RUTKOWSKI P, et al. Radiologic and pathologic response evaluation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: a Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group (TARPSWG) collaboration[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2025, 32(7): 5359-5366. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-025-17306-9. [45] CROMBÉ A, SPINNATO P, ITALIANO A, et al. Radiomics and artificial intelligence for soft-tissue sarcomas: current status and perspectives[J]. Diagn Interv Imag, 2023, 104(12): 567-583. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2023.09.005. [46] GAMBOA A C, GRONCHI A, CARDONA K. Soft-tissue sarcoma in adults: an update on the current state of histiotype-specific management in an era of personalized medicine[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2020, 70(3): 200-229. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21605. [47] TSENG W W, SWALLOW C J, STRAUSS D C, et al. Management of locally recurrent retroperitoneal sarcoma in the adult: an updated consensus approach from the Transatlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2022, 29(12): 7335-7348. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-11864-y. [48] TIROTTA F, BACON A, COLLINS S, et al. Primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: a comparison of survival outcomes in specialist and non-specialist sarcoma centres[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2023, 188: 20-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.004. [49] WONG R X, KOH Y S, ONG F, et al. Applicability of the Sarculator and MSKCC nomograms to retroperitoneal sarcoma prognostication in an Asian tertiary center[J]. Asian J Surg, 2020, 43(11): 1078-1085. DOI: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2020.01.005. [50] CALLEGARO D, BARRETTA F, RAUT C P, et al. New sarculator prognostic nomograms for patients with primary retroperitoneal sarcoma: case volume does matter[J]. Ann Surg, 2024, 279(5): 857-865. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000006098. [51] STILLMAN M, ESPAT N J, KWON S. ASO visual abstract: validation of updated sarculator nomogram for primary retroperitoneal sarcoma in the United States[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2026, 33(4): 3635-3636. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-025-19078-8. [52] FOERSCH S, ECKSTEIN M, WAGNER D C, et al. Deep learning for diagnosis and survival prediction in soft tissue sarcoma[J]. Ann Oncol, 2021, 32(9): 1178-1187. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.007. [53] SCHNEIDER N, STRAUSS D C, SMITH M J, et al. The adequacy of core biopsy in the assessment of smooth muscle neoplasms of soft tissues: implications for treatment and prognosis[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2017, 41(7): 923-931. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000867. [54] CROMBÉ A, MATCUK G R, FADLI D, et al. Role of imaging in initial prognostication of locally advanced soft tissue sarcomas[J]. Acad Radiol, 2023, 30(2): 322-340. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2022.04.003. [55] LIU D N, WU J H, LI Z W, et al. Preoperative assessment of retroperitoneal Liposarcoma using volume-based 18F-FDG PET/CT: implications for surgical strategy and prognosis[J]. BMC Med Imaging, 2023, 23(1): 215. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-023-01179-z. [56] LI C P, LIU D N, ZHOU N N, et al. Prediction of histologic subtype and FNCLCC grade by SUVmax measured on 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with retroperitoneal liposarcoma[J]. Contrast Media Mol Imaging, 2021, 2021: 7191363. DOI: 10.1155/2021/7191363. [57] REN Y, XUE Z, LIANG T, et al. A CT-based deep learning model to predict local recurrence-free survival in primary retroperitoneal sarcoma[J]. Front Med, 2025, 12: 1725377. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1725377. [58] PASQUALI S, IADECOLA S, VANZULLI A, et al. Radiomic features of primary retroperitoneal sarcomas: a prognostic study[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2024, 213: 115120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2024.115120. [59] TIAN Z, CHENG Y, ZHAO S, et al. Deep learning radiomics-based prediction model of metachronous distant metastasis following curative resection for retroperitoneal leiomyosarcoma: a bicentric study[J]. Cancer Imaging, 2024, 24(1): 52. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-024-00697-5. [60] XU J, MIAO J G, WANG C X, et al. CT-based quantification of intratumoral heterogeneity for predicting distant metastasis in retroperitoneal sarcoma[J]. Insights Imaging, 2025, 16(1): 99. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-025-01977-9.