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
Objective, reproducible, and trustworthy data in clinical trials with imaging endpoints
Dr. Anthony Tolcher, medical oncologist and CEO of NEXT Oncology, spoke to us about objectivity as one of the biggest challenges in clinical trials…
University Hospital Jena: Study evaluated response rate and safety in patients with HCC treated with DEB-TACE using 40-µm microspheres
Researchers at the University Hospital Jena analyzed the response rate and safety of superselective drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization…
University Hospital Tübingen: Study examined correlation between 18f-fdg PET and CT texture parameters in metastatic melanoma patients
An exploratory study [1] conducted by researchers at University Hospital Tuebingen investigated whether CT texture analysis parameters correlate with…