Neuro-oncology imaging plays a central role in brain tumour claims, particularly where issues arise around interpretation, disease monitoring, treatment response and causation. In this expert-led webinar, Professor Sotirios Bisdas explores how neuroradiology evidence can help solicitors understand what was visible, what was reasonable at the time, and how imaging findings may influence breach, causation and quantum.

About the Speaker

Professor Sotirios Bisdas is a Consultant Neuroradiologist and expert witness specialising in adult and paediatric neuroradiology, neuro-oncology, brain and spine injury, and advanced neuroimaging.

He has extensive experience in complex imaging interpretation, disease monitoring and medico-legal reporting. His work supports solicitors in cases involving suspected missed lesions, delayed diagnosis, disputed progression, treatment response and causation in neuro-oncology litigation.

Webinar Key Themes

In this webinar, Professor Bisdas explains why neuro-oncology imaging should be assessed in its real-world clinical context, rather than against an idealised textbook standard.

Key medico-legal insights include:

• MRI can identify tumour presence, location, volume and mass effect, but it cannot reliably determine molecular classification or the exact date of tumour onset on its own.
• The correct imaging baseline is crucial. In post-treatment cases, comparison against the wrong scan can lead to mistaken conclusions about progression.
• Pseudo-progression, pseudo-response and radionecrosis can mimic tumour progression, creating significant risks in treatment decisions and litigation.
• MDT minutes are often essential for understanding how imaging findings were discussed, weighted and acted upon.
• Advanced imaging tools, including perfusion MRI, spectroscopy, PET and AI-assisted volumetry, may materially affect the reliability of conclusions where they were reasonably available.

Why This Matters for Solicitors

Brain tumour claims often involve complex questions around timing, progression and missed opportunities. The neuroradiologist’s role is not simply to say whether a scan was “right” or “wrong”, but to explain what a reasonable radiologist or MDT could have concluded at the relevant time.

This can be particularly important in cases involving delayed diagnosis, disputed treatment withdrawal, missed lesions, suboptimal imaging protocols or uncertainty around whether imaging changes represented true disease progression.

Read the full medico-legal article here >