When radiology fails to fix clinical trial imaging workflow at sites…

What most think, why it’s wrong, and what cancer centers really need

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

Radiology departments have tried for years to “own” or “fix” clinical trials imaging assessment workflows by extending clinical tools (PACS, worklists, dictation systems) and habits (speed, seamlessness, few clicks) into the research world. 

To access this subscriber-only content please log in or subscribe.

If your institution has a site license, log in with IP-login or register for a sponsored account.*
*Not all site licenses are enrolled in sponsored accounts.

Login Subscribe
Jeff Sorenson
CEO and co-founder, Yunu
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a state agency tasked with awarding billions of dollars of scientific funding for stem cell and gene therapy, has rescinded a controversial policy that was disrupting the flow of funding to cancer research.
Positive topline results have come out of the randomized phase II FOURLIGHT-1 study evaluating atirmociclib in combination with fulvestrant, versus fulvestrant or everolimus plus exemestane, in people with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had received prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor-based treatment. 
Jeff Sorenson
CEO and co-founder, Yunu

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login