jump to content jump to footer

Comparison of iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 for Evaluating Immunotherapy in Melanoma and Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

In a retrospective study conducted at the University Hospital Cologne, the radiological criteria iRECIST and RECIST 1.1 were compared for assessing treatment response in melanoma and NSCLC patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors.

The results indicate that iRECIST is better suited for capturing atypical treatment responses to immunotherapies, especially in patients experiencing pseudoprogression. iRECIST could thus contribute to a more accurate evaluation of treatment response and improved immunotherapy outcomes.

Read more about the study here.

Research with mint mintLesion Clinical Research Standardized Reading Procedures iRECIST RECIST

Related Resources

A collaborative session between a radiologist and an investigator analyzing multicentric trial progress and quantitative imaging data on a centralized dashboard.
Integrated Data Management for Multicentric Imaging in Investigator-Initiated Trials (IITs)

Establishing a Framework for Multicentric Data Coordination

For many investigators, the transition from a single-site study to a multicentric model…

mint Lesion usage during a clinical trial read, featuring the TGRM export tool.
Bridging the Gap Between RECIST and Survival: Why the FDA’s Analysis of the g Value is a Game-Changer

For decades, oncology trials have relied on RECIST 1.1 to evaluate drug efficacy. However, these categorical "snapshot" evaluations do not always…

Participants at the RECIST and Beyond workshop in Cologne during hands-on training with mint Lesion for structured tumor response assessment.
The two-day “RECIST and Beyond” workshop at radCIO Cologne offered intensive hands-on training on RECIST, iRECIST, mRECIST and LI-RADS, with real-case reporting performed directly in mint Lesion.
Successful “RECIST and Beyond” Workshop in Cologne: Advancing Precision in Oncologic Imaging

How can complex tumor findings be assessed accurately, reproducibly, and in line with clinical guidelines?