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
Recording of RSNA 2019 AI theater presentation | Power food for AI
At this year’s RSNA, Mint Medical presented its AI approach to the audience at the AI theater. Tobias Gottmann and Aditya Jayaram highlighted how…
Data-driven healthcare through FIHR®-enabled interoperability
Nowadays, it is not unusual for healthcare systems to use numerous clinical applications from different vendors. Most tend to prefer flexibility for…
mint Lesion radiomics leverage precision medicine
The benefits that texture analysis and radiomics have shown already, and the improved availability of large data sets led to an increased interest in…