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
RACOON SAGA: Interdisciplinary Research for Better Therapy Decisions in Sarcoma Treatment
Sarcomas are rare tumors that pose particular challenges to both medicine and research. Their heterogeneity makes precise diagnostics difficult, which…
The Template Designer in Use: Interview with Dr. Madelaine Hettler
Structured, well-organized data are the foundation of meaningful research. But how can they be captured effectively in practice? Dr. Madelaine…
Research Insights: The Template Designer in Use
Structured and well-organized data are essential building blocks for successful research and clinical projects. The Template Designer provides a tool…