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
Potential of longitudinal data from single site and multi-center clinical trials for AI-research
Prof. Dr. Hans-Christoph Becker from Stanford University, a long-standing user of mint Lesion™, shares his experience of using the software in this…
Home of excellence for cancer care innovation
In a multidisciplinary center that networks medical research, natural sciences, engineering sciences, computer science and business administration, in…
The Mint Experience of Dr. Stephen Raskin, Sheba Medical Center in Tel Aviv
From my initial experience with mint Lesion™ software, and over the time I have been using it, I have been pleased with the software and come to…