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
mint PI-RADS V2 report as the standard for communication with urologists - Interview with PD Dr. Röthke
Since the beginning of 2017, all PI-RADS v2 reads are exclusively performed with mint Lesion™ by PD Dr. Matthias Röthke, Chief Medical Officer at…
Pancreas staging in clinical routine at University Hospital Innsbruck - Interview with PD Dr. Widmann
The University Hospital in Innsbruck, Austria, has been using mint Lesion™ since mid-2015 with the initial focus on clinical trials in order to…
Assessment time halved: Importance of a good tumor response assessment tool in clinical site reads
The Clinical Research Imaging Core (CRIC) of the University of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center (UWCCC) recently published a poster at the AACI CRI…