Introduction Three‐dimensional printing is a promising technology to produce phantoms for quality assurance and dosimetry in X‐ray imaging. Crucial to this, however, is the use of tissue equivalent printing materials. It was thus the aim of this study to evaluate the properties of a larger number of commercially available printing filaments with respect to their attenuation and absorption of X‐rays. Materials and methods Apparent kerma attenuation coefficients (AKACs) and absorbed doses for different X‐ray spectra (tube voltages, 70–140 kV) were measured and simulated by Monte‐Carlo computations for a larger number of fused‐deposition‐modeling (FDM) materials. The results were compared with the respective values simulated for reference body tissues. In addition, the properties of polylactide acid samples printed with reduced infill densities were investigated. Results Measured and simulated AKACs and absorbed doses agreed well with each other and in case of AKACs also with attenuation coefficients derived from the reference database of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For lung, adipose, muscle, and bulk soft tissue as well as for spongiosa (cancellous bone), printed materials with equivalent attenuation as well as absorption properties could be identified. In contrast, none of the considered printed materials was equivalent to cortical bone. Conclusion Several FDM materials have been identified as well‐suited substitutes for body tissues in terms of the investigated material characteristics. They can therefore be used for in‐house production of individualized and task‐specific phantoms for image quality assessment and dose measurements in X‐ray imaging.

BackgroundThe production of individualized anthropomorphic phantoms via three‐dimensional (3D) printing methods offers promising possibilities to assess and optimize radiation exposures for specifically relevant patient groups (i.e., overweighed or pregnant persons) that are not adequately represented by standardized anthropomorphic phantoms. However, the equivalence of printed phantoms must be demonstrated exemplarily with respect to the resulting image contrasts and dose distributions.PurposeTo reproduce a conventionally produced anthropomorphic phantom of a female chest and breasts and to evaluate their equivalence with respect to image contrasts and absorbed doses at the example of a computed tomography (CT) examination of the chest.MethodsIn a first step, the effect of different print settings on the CT values of printed samples was systematically investigated. Subsequently, a transversal slice and breast add‐ons of a conventionally produced female body phantom were reproduced using a multi‐material extrusion‐based printer, considering six different types of tissues (muscle, lung, adipose, and glandular breast tissue, as well as bone and cartilage). CT images of the printed and conventionally produced phantom parts were evaluated with respect to their geometric correspondence, image contrasts, and absorbed doses measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters.ResultsCT values of printed objects are highly sensitive to the selected print settings. The soft tissues of the conventionally produced phantom could be reproduced with a good agreement. Minor differences in CT values were observed for bone and lung tissue, whereas absorbed doses to the relevant tissues were identical within the measurement uncertainties.Conclusion3D‐printed phantoms are with exception of minor contrast differences equivalent to their conventionally manufactured counterparts. When comparing the two production techniques, it is important to note that conventionally manufactured phantoms should not be considered as absolute benchmarks, as they also only approximate the human body in terms of its absorption, and attenuation of x‐rays as well as its geometry.

In biological dosimetry, dose-response curves are essential for reliable retrospective dose estimation of individual exposure in case of a radiation accident. Therefore, blood samples are irradiated in vitro and evaluated based on the applied assay. Accurate physical dosimetry of the irradiation performance is a critical part of the experimental procedure and is influenced by the experimental setup, especially when X-ray cabinets are used. The aim of this study was to investigate variations and pitfalls associated with the experimental setups used to establish calibration curves in biological dosimetry with X-ray cabinets. In this study, irradiation was performed with an X-ray source (195 kV, 10 mA, 0.5 mm Cu filter, dose rate 0.52 Gy/min, 1st and 2nd half-value layer = 1.01 and 1.76 mm Cu, respectively, average energy 86.9 keV). Blood collection tubes were irradiated with a dose of 1 Gy in vertical or horizontal orientation in the center of the beam area with or without usage of an additional fan heater. To evaluate the influence of the setups, physical dose measurements using thermoluminescence dosimeters, electron paramagnetic resonance dosimetry and ionization chamber as well as biological effects, quantified by dicentric chromosomes and micronuclei, were compared. This study revealed that the orientation of the sample tubes (vertical vs. horizontal) had a significant effect on the radiation dose with a variation of −41% up to +49% and contributed to a dose gradient of up to 870 mGy inside the vertical tubes due to the size of the sample tubes and the associated differences in the distance to the focal point of the tube. The number of dicentric chromosomes and micronuclei differed by ~30% between both orientations. An additional fan heater had no consistent impact. Therefore, dosimetric monitoring of experimental irradiation setups is mandatory prior to the establishment of calibration curves in biological dosimetry. Careful consideration of the experimental setup in collaboration with physicists is required to ensure traceability and reproducibility of irradiation conditions, to correlate the radiation dose and the number of aberrations correctly and to avoid systematical bias influencing the dose estimation in the frame of biological dosimetry.