ArticleOcular oncology and pathology2025
Evaluation of MRI Safety of Ru-106 Eye Applicators.
Article in Ocular oncology and pathology, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ruthenium-106 brachytherapy is a primary treatment for uveal melanoma (UM), the most common intra-ocular malignancy in adults. This study evaluated the safety of Ru-106 applicators at 3 Tesla (T) MRI and their impact on image quality. Methods: Magnetic attraction and eddy currents were tested on a 20-mm-diameter Ru-106 applicator using a nylon string and a porcine eye. Safety criteria were defined by ocular oncologists, comparing magnetic field interactions to the forces exerted on the eye during surgery. Five UM patients were scanned at 3T MRI with the applicator in situ using both conventional anatomical sequences and scans optimised to reduce metal artefacts. Results: Minimal magnetic interactions were observed. Eddy currents caused slight lagging during fast movements and temporary detachment of the applicator of the porcine eye in conditions that were considered unrealistic for clinical scans. Significant susceptibility artefacts compromised image quality of the affected eye. Conclusion: Patients with Ru-106 applicators can be safely used in 3T MRI with some simple precautions. MR image quality of the eye was poor due to major susceptibility artefacts; however, imaging of extra-ocular anatomy is feasible.
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.