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 Analytics: Real-time data visualization and analysis in clinical trials with imaging endpoints
We talked to PD Dr. Wolfgang G. Kunz, Head of Oncological Imaging and of the Oncological Study Center at the Ludwig Maximilians University Hospital…
University Hospital Cologne: Study provides guidance values of iodine concentration for body CT examinations
Using data from a large cohort of individuals without radiological tumor burden, researchers from University Hospital Cologne have conducted a study…
Private Practice KölnTriangle: Catapulted into a New Orbit of Reporting
With mint Lesion™, “complex information is condensed so that it is easier to understand. We believe that this way, we can make the complex central…