Evaluating MRI for Guided Procedures
This study is evaluating how well Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) using the Philips Ingenua 1.5T scanner works during MRI-guided procedures like ablations (a procedure that uses heat or cold to destroy tissue) or biopsies (removing a small piece of tissue for examination). Researchers want to see if new MRI methods can improve patient care by making data acquisition faster or image quality better. You might be able to join if you are 18 years or older, male or female, and are either a healthy volunteer or already scheduled for an MRI-guided procedure. The study will measure if these MRI improvements lead to better patient care over three years. The current status of this study is unclear.
- Study design
- This is an interventional study planning to enroll 100 participants. It is evaluating advanced MRI imaging methods.
- What's involved
- Not specified in the trial record.
- Compensation
- Not stated in the trial record.
- Follow-up
- The primary endpoint will be measured at 3 years, suggesting a follow-up period.
AI-generated from the public study record. Only the study team can confirm whether you're eligible — confirm details with them before making decisions.
A Study to Evaluate Non-significant Risk Operation Magnetic Resonance Imaging for MRI Guided Ablation
At a glance
Conditions
Where it's being run
1 sites across 1 statesStudy leadership
- Aiming Lu, PhD · PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR · Mayo Clinic
Who to contact
Opens a ready-to-send draft in your own email app — review before sending.
Do you actually qualify for this trial?
Add a private profile and we'll compare every criterion below against your situation — and tell you which ones are met, uncertain, or excluding.
Inclusion
Exclusion
What this trial measures
- Clinical determination whether the sequence improves patient care during MRI-guided procedures.3 years
It will be determined whether the sequence under investigation improves one of the following: 1. lesion targeting (e.g. better guidance of applicators by reduction of metal artifact), 2. lesion ablation (e.g. improved MR thermometry, visualization of cryoablation ice), or 3. accurate assessment of treatment outcome (e.g. margins of ablation relative to lesion boundaries.