ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Incidental findings and safety events from magnetic resonance imaging simulation for head and neck radiation treatment planning: A single institution experience.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Having dedicated MRI scanners within radiation oncology departments may present unexpected challenges since radiation oncologists and radiation therapists are generally not trained in this modality and there are potential patient safety concerns. This study retrospectively reviews the incidental findings and safety events that were observed at a single institution during introduction of MRI sim for head and neck radiotherapy planning. Methods: Consecutive patients from March 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022, who were scheduled for MRI sim after having completed CT simulation for head and neck radiotherapy were included for analysis. Patients first underwent a CT simulation with a thermoplastic mask and in most cases with an intraoral stent. The same setup was then reproduced in the MRI simulator. Safety events were instances where scheduled MRI sims were not completed due to the MRI technologist identifying MRI-incompatible devices or objects at the time of sim. Incidental findings were identified during weekly quality assurance rounds as a joint enterprise of head and neck radiation oncology and neuroradiology. Categorical variables between completed and not completed MRI sims were compared using the Chi-Square test and continuous variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney Results: 148 of 169 MRI sims (88 %) were completed as scheduled and 21 (12 %) were not completed (Table 1). Among the 21 aborted MRI sims, the most common reason was due to safety events flagged by the MRI technologist (n = 8, 38 %) because of the presence of metal or a medical device that was not noted at the time of initial screening by the administrative coordinator. Patients who did not complete MRI sim were more likely to be treated for non-squamous head and neck primary tumor (p = 0.016) and were being treated post-operatively (p < 0.001). CT and MRI sim scans each had 17 incidental findings. CT simulation detected 3 cases of new metastases in lungs, which were outside the scan parameters of MRI sim. MRI sim detected one case of dural venous thrombosis and one case of cervical spine epidural abscess, which were not detected by CT simulation. Conclusions: Radiation oncology departments with dedicated MRI simulation scanners would benefit from diagnostic radiology review for incidental findings and having therapists with MRI safety credentialing to catch near-miss events.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.