Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33395503›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021

Initial testing of pegfilgrastim (Neulasta Onpro) on-body injector in multiple radiological imaging environments.

Zaiyang Long, Anil Nicholas Kurup, Nicole M Jensen, Nicholas J Hangiandreou, Beth A Schueler, Lifeng Yu, Shuai Leng, Christopher P Wood, Joel P Felmlee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zaiyang LongDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4971-3215
Anil Nicholas KurupDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nicole M JensenDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Nicholas J HangiandreouDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Beth A SchuelerDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Lifeng YuDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Shuai LengDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Christopher P WoodDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Joel P FelmleeDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Arizona · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAn increasing number of implantable or external devices can impact whether patients can receive radiological imaging examinations. This study examines and tests the Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) Onpro on-body injector in multiple imaging environments.

methodsThe injector was analyzed for four imaging modalities with testing protocols and strategies developed for each modality. In x-ray and computed tomography (CT), scans with much higher exposure than clinical protocols were performed with the device attached to an anthropomorphic phantom. The device was monitored until the completion of drug delivery. For magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the device was assessed using a hand-held magnet and underwent the magnetically induced displacement testing in a 1.5T clinical MRI scanner room. For ultrasound, magnetic field changes were measured around an ultrasound scanner system with three transducers.

resultsFor x-ray and CT no sign of device error was identified during or after the high radiation exposure scans. Drug delivery was completed at expected timing with expected volume. For MRI the device showed significant attractive force towards the hand-held magnet and a 50-degree deflection angle at 50 cm from the opening of the scanner bore. No further assessment from the gradient or radiofrequency field was deemed necessary. For ultrasound the maximum magnetic field change from baseline was measured to be +11.7 μT in comparison to +74.2 μT at 4 inches from a working microwave.

conclusionsNo device performance issue was identified under the extreme test conditions in x-ray or CT. The device was found to be MR Unsafe. Magnetic field changes around an ultrasound system met the limitation set by manufacture. Patient ultrasound scanning is considered safe as long as the transducers do not inadvertently loosen the device.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingPolyethylene GlycolsFilgrastimHumansPhantoms, ImagingFilgrastimpegfilgrastimPolyethylene GlycolsCTMRIneulastapegfilgrastimultrasoundx-ray

Identifiers

PMID33395503
PMCPMC7856482
OpenAlexW3120416191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.