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
Study - free text reporting vs. mint Lesion in clinical routine
Free text reporting in the tumor response assessment of radiologic imaging data is common in clinical routine, whereas in clinical trials standardized…
6 years of Mint at University Hospital Basel - Interview with PD Dr. Tobias Heye
Since the end of 2011, mint Lesion™ has been in use at the University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland, – initially merely as a tool for clinical…
University Hospital Ulm: Pilot study shows discriminatory power of MRI-based 3d texture analysis for bone lesions
Distinguishing between enchondroma, a benign tumor, and low-grade chondrosarcoma, which is a low-aggressivity malignancy, is a frequent challenge, as…