Parent perspectives and preferences for strategies regarding nonsedated MRI scans in a pediatric oncology population
- 375 Downloads
Children with cancer frequently require MRI scans for clinical purposes. Sedation with general anesthesia (GA) is often used to promote compliance, reduce motion, and alleviate anxiety. The use of GA for MRI scans is costly in terms of time, personnel, and medications. In addition, prominent risks are associated with anesthesia exposure in patients with complex medical conditions. Successful behavioral interventions have been implemented in clinical research settings to promote scan success and compliance. To our knowledge, parent/caregiver acceptability of behavioral interventions to promote nonsedated MRI has not been systematically investigated in a medically complex population. As a first step toward developing a protocol-based intervention to promote nonsedated scanning, we conducted a survey to explore parental perspectives regarding acceptability of nonsedated scanning and to gain information regarding preference for specific behavioral interventions to facilitate nonsedated MRI exams.
Parents or guardians of 101 patients diagnosed with childhood cancer participated in a semi-structured survey via telephone. The sample was stratified by age group (8–12 years; 13–18 years), gender, and diagnosis (solid tumor (ST), brain tumor (BT), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL)).
The majority of parents indicated that nonsedated MRI scans would be acceptable. Reduced anesthesia exposure was the most frequently identified benefit, followed by decreased irritability post-MRI scan, and shorter appointment time. Challenges included fear of movement and noise during scans and change in routine, with parents of younger children and those with a history of sedated exams identifying more challenges. Behavioral intervention preference differed by patient age and gender; however, education was ranked as most preferred overall.
Parents of children treated for cancer consider behavior interventions to promote nonsedated scanning as acceptable. Patient characteristics should be considered when tailoring behavioral interventions. Results can inform future studies of behavioral interventions to promote nonsedated MRI scans. Future research should also investigate the risks associated with failed exams, both in terms of patient medical care and cost effectiveness.
KeywordsPediatric cancer Sedation Caregiver Strategies MRI Adolescents/child
This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute (St. Jude Cancer Center Support (CORE) under grant [P30 CA21765] and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC). Research was conducted at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
This study was approved by the hospital’s Institutional Review Board. Informed consent was obtained by all individual participants in this study
- 2.Schlund MW, Cataldo MF, Siegle GJ, Ladouceur CD, Silk JS, Forbes EE, McFarland A, Iyengar S, Dahl RE, Ryan ND (2011) Pediatric functional magnetic resonance neuroimaging: tactics for encouraging task compliance. Behav Brain Funct 7(1):10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-7-10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Rosenberg DR, Sweeney JA, Gillen JS, Kim J, Varanelli MJ, O'Hearn KM, Erb PA, Davis D, Thulborn KR (1997) Magnetic resonance imaging of children without sedation: preparation with simulation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 36(6):853–859. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199706000-00024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Viggiano MP, Giganti F, Rossi A, Di Feo D, Vagnoli L, Calcagno G, Defilippi C (2015) Impact of psychological interventions on reducing anxiety, fear and the need for sedation in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging. Pediat Rep 7(1):5682. https://doi.org/10.4081/pr.2015.5682 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hsu YH, Lin FS, Yang CC, Lin CP, Hua MS, Sun WZ (2015) Evident cognitive impairments in seemingly recovered patients after midazolam-based light sedation during diagnostic endoscopy. J Formosan Med Assoc Taiwan yi zhi 114(6):489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2013.07.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Jacola LM, Anghelescu D, Hall L, White L, Russell K, Schreiber JE, Rossi M, Moore A, Gajjar A (2017) The relationship between procedural sedation during treatment and neurocognitive outcomes in survivors of pediatric medulloblastoma. Internation Neuropsychology Society, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
- 10.Peters JB, Anghelescu D, Conklin HM, Hall L, Means BL, Schreiber JE, Rossi M, Wright B, Gajjar A, Jacola LM (2017) The impact of sedation for radiation therapy on performance measures and caregiver ratings of attention in survivors of pediatric medulloblastoma. Internation Neuropsychology Society, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
- 12.Byars AW, Holland SK, Strawsburg RH, Bommer W, Dunn RS, Schmithorst VJ, Plante E (2002) Practical aspects of conducting large-scale functional magnetic resonance imaging studies in children. J Child Neurol 17(12):885–890. https://doi.org/10.1177/08830738020170122201 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 14.Gale C, Jeffries S, Logan KM, Chappell KE, Uthaya SN, Modi N (2013) Avoiding sedation in research MRI and spectroscopy in infants: our approach, success rate and prevalence of incidental findings. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 98(3):F267–F268. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2012-302536 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Barnea-Goraly N, Weinzimer SA, Ruedy KJ, Mauras N, Beck RW, Marzelli MJ, Mazaika PK, Aye T, White NH, Tsalikian E, Fox L, Kollman C, Cheng P, Reiss AL, Diabetes Research in Children N (2014) High success rates of sedation-free brain MRI scanning in young children using simple subject preparation protocols with and without a commercial mock scanner—the diabetes research in children network (DirecNet) experience. Pediatr Radiol 44(2):181–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2798-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.de Bie HM, Boersma M, Wattjes MP, Adriaanse S, Vermeulen RJ, Oostrom KJ, Huisman J, Veltman DJ, Delemarre-Van de Waal HA (2010) Preparing children with a mock scanner training protocol results in high quality structural and functional MRI scans. Eur J Pediatr 169(9):1079–1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-010-1181-z CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Grissom S, Boles J, Bailey K, Cantrell K, Kennedy A, Sykes A, Mandrell BN (2016) Play-based procedural preparation and support intervention for cranial radiation. Supportive care in cancer: official journal of the multinational association of Support Care Cancer 24(6):2421–2427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-015-3040-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Yerys BE, Jankowski KF, Shook D, Rosenberger LR, Barnes KA, Berl MM, Ritzl EK, Vanmeter J, Vaidya CJ, Gaillard WD (2009) The fMRI success rate of children and adolescents: typical development, epilepsy, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and autism spectrum disorders. Hum Brain Mapp 30(10):3426–3435. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20767 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 29.Vannest J, Rajagopal A, Cicchino ND, Franks-Henry J, Simpson SM, Lee G, Altaye M, Sroka C, Holland SK, Consortium CA (2014) Factors determining success of awake and asleep magnetic resonance imaging scans in nonsedated children. Neuropediatrics 45(6):370–377. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1387816 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar