Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42416952›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Adapting Radiology Magnetic Resonance Safety Workflows to Magnetic Resonance Imaging Simulation in Radiation Oncology.

Rachel A Sabol, Charlotte S Chan, Nicolas D Prionas, Christina Calvin, Luis Pelayo, Haley Randolph, Sherman Lim, Craig Devincent, Michael Ohliger, Javier Villanueva-Meyer and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Rachel A SabolDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Charlotte S ChanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Nicolas D PrionasDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Christina CalvinDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Luis PelayoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Haley RandolphDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Sherman LimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Craig DevincentDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Michael OhligerDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Javier Villanueva-MeyerDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Jessica ScholeyDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Lisa SingerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWith the use of MRI simulation and MRI-linacs, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is becoming increasingly integrated into radiation oncology (RO) departments, requiring new safety considerations. While American College of Radiology guidelines describe MRI safety broadly, there is limited published experience in adapting these workflows to RO-specific settings and equipment, such as MRI simulators. This quality improvement study evaluated the impact of MRI safety interventions in RO at a single institution.

methodsIn an effort to improve safety surrounding the use of a 3-T MRI simulator in RO, three plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles were implemented at a single institution. Cycle 1 implemented a two-screen functional workflow used in radiology, adapted for the RO setting; cycle 2 implemented department-wide education; and cycle 3 introduced a visual aid to assist with screening. The MRI schedule was retrospectively reviewed for safety endpoints during each cycle. Endpoints evaluated included the number of same-day cancellations, the number of patients identified at the initial screen as having an implant, and safety events (SEs).

resultsThe percentages of MRI simulations that were same-day cancellations during PDSA cycles 1-3 were 6.6%, 10.4%, and 7.4%, respectively (p = 0.51). The number of patients identified at the initial screen as potentially having an implant that needs review by the MRI safety team, representing early identification of high-risk patients, was zero, zero, and three across the three PDSA cycles, respectively. There were no SEs during the study.

conclusionAn MRI safety workflow developed in radiology was successfully implemented in RO. The number of patients successfully screened as high-risk at the initial screen increased after repeat education. Although overall cancellation rates did not significantly change, these findings suggest that repeated targeted education and visual reference tools may improve early detection of potentially unsafe implants. There were no SEs during the study period. Further improvements in early identification of high-risk patients could decrease same-day cancellations and increase the efficiency of MRI simulation, a limited departmental resource.

Indexed as

interdisciplinary collaboration educationmagnetic resonance (mr)mri safetymr simulationquality improvement and patient safety

Identifiers

PMID42416952
PMCPMC13337735

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.