A recent retrospective study led by Dr. Marilyn J. Siegel and her team at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has shed light on a critical issue in cancer care: routine clinical reads are more prone to overdiagnosing progressive disease when compared to RECIST 1.1 interpretations. This discrepancy holds significant implications, potentially leading to the premature discontinuation of effective treatments for cancer clinical trial participants and patients under standard care.
In this study, mint Lesion software was utilized for the criteria-based reads, determining overall response assessments according to RECIST 1.1 criteria, and generating structured reports for the clinical trial's principal investigator.
To learn more about the study's insights into the discrepant assessments and the suggested steps for mitigating this issue, click here.
Study Discovers Overdiagnosis of Progressive Cancer in Routine Clinical Evaluations
Related Resources
Related Resources
Systems on FHIR: Driving Healthcare Innovation Through Interoperability
Interoperability is revolutionizing healthcare by enabling the seamless exchange of patient data across systems. This efficient data flow is critical…
Human-AI Collaboration in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis
As prostate cancer diagnosis becomes increasingly complex, the collaboration between human expertise and artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a…
Customizable reading templates for therapy response assessment
mint Lesion offers customizable reading templates for therapy response assessment in clinical care and research. Adapt parameters, define lesion…