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
University Hospital Munich (LMU): Study Analyzing the Tumor Growth Rate as a Prognostic Biomarker in Lymphoma Patients Under CAR T-Cell Therapy
A recent study[1] conducted by researchers at the University Hospital Munich (LMU) investigated the role of tumor growth rate (TGR) in predicting the…
Advancing Neuro-Oncology Assessments: Mint Medical to Integrate Newly Published RANO 2.0 Criteria into mint Lesion™
Glioblastomas and other gliomas are the most common malignant primary brain tumor types, yet few effective therapies are available. Clinical research…
Study Highlights the Potential of Radiomics in Medical Intervention
A recent study conducted by the Medical University of Innsbruck highlights the potential of radiomics in exploring the impacts of Radiochemotherapy…