Incidental findings and safety events from magnetic resonance imaging simulation for head and neck radiation treatment planning: A single institution experience
Jonathan Massachi , Lisa Singer , Christine Glastonbury , Jessica Scholey , Kamal Singhrao , Christina Calvin , Sue S. Yom , Jason W. Chan
{"title":"Incidental findings and safety events from magnetic resonance imaging simulation for head and neck radiation treatment planning: A single institution experience","authors":"Jonathan Massachi , Lisa Singer , Christine Glastonbury , Jessica Scholey , Kamal Singhrao , Christina Calvin , Sue S. Yom , Jason W. Chan","doi":"10.1016/j.tipsro.2023.100228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>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 <em>U</em> test with a p-value of < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>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.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>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.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36328,"journal":{"name":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632423000288/pdfft?md5=7620981f0c31bc487050a1dd796ac5f2&pid=1-s2.0-S2405632423000288-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Technical Innovations and Patient Support in Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405632423000288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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 U test with a p-value of < 0.05 considered to be statistically significant.
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.