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
Closing the Care Gap by Shaping the Future of Evidence-Based Medicine
Healthcare still lags behind other economic sectors in terms of digitalization. Despite significant advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic…
Three Key Benefits of Structured Reporting in Daily Clinical Routine
In this short interview, Dr. Remy Geenen from Northwest Clinics in Alkmaar, Netherlands, shares his personal mint Lesion™ experience, where he talks…
Fostering Consistent Application and Interpretation of the Treatment Response Criteria Across Europe and Beyond
Last week Mint Medical supported an ESOI-EORTC joint hands-on course on imaging in assessing response to cancer therapy - a yearly event that took…