A Customized Tissue Compensator With 3-Dimensional Print Technique for Chest Wall Electron Irradiation

Li, N.; Tian, Yuan; Jin, Jie; Li, Y.; Tang, Yu; Liu, W.; Wang, W.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Liu, X.; Yu, Zi-Hao; Dai, Jianrong

doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2221

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results revealed a 14.5% (0.8 Gy) decrease in the MHD for left‐sided breast cancer treated with a 3D‐printed bolus, compared to a conventional standard super‐flat bolus. Our results are similar to those of previous studies on electronic electron beam technology for breast cancer patients 15,16 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, several studies have demonstrated that patients benefit from the application of a three‐dimensional (3D) printed bolus 12–17 . However, studies that have suggested a dose reduction for the heart and lung refer only to electron beam radiotherapy for breast cancer patients 15,16 . Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) can significantly shorten the length of radiotherapy and improve the efficiency of equipment, and previous research studies have confirmed that VMAT technology can reduce the dose to the heart and ipsilateral lung 17–19 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A clinical trial to compare a 3D‐printed bolus with a conventional bolus with the aim of reducing cardiopulmonary exposure in postmastectomy patients with volumetric modulated arc therapy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We compared the dosimetry, application, and acute toxicity of a 3D‐printed and a conventional bolus for postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Materials and Methods Eligible patients (n = 75) with PMRT breast cancer were randomly selected to receive VMAT with a conventional bolus or a 3D‐printed bolus. The primary endpoint was a 10% decrease in the mean heart dose to left‐sided breast cancer patients. The secondary endpoint was a 5% decrease in the mean ipsilateral lung dose to all patients. A comparative analysis was carried out of the dosimetry, normal tissue complication probability (NTCP), acute skin toxicity, and radiation pneumonitis. Results Compared to a conventional bolus, the mean heart dose in left‐sided breast cancer was reduced by an average of 0.8 Gy (5.5 ± 1.3 Gy vs. 4.7 ± 0.8 Gy, p = 0.035) and the mean dose to the ipsilateral lung was also reduced by an average of 0.8 Gy (12.4 ± 1.0 Gy vs. 11.6 ± 0.8 Gy, p < 0.001). The values for V50Gy of the PTV of the chest wall for the 3D‐printed and conventional boluses were 95.4 ± 0.6% and 94.8 ± 0.8% (p = 0.026) and the values for the CI of the entire PTV were 0.83 ± 0.02 and 0.80 ± 0.03 (p < 0.001), respectively. The NTCP for the 3D‐printed bolus was also reduced to an average of 0.14% (0.32 ± 0.19% vs. 0.18 ± 0.11%, p = 0.017) for the heart and 0.45% (3.70 ± 0.67% vs. 3.25 ± 0.18%, p < 0.001) for the ipsilateral lung. Grade 2 and Grade 1 radiation pneumonitis were 0.0% versus 7.5% and 14.3% versus 20.0%, respectively (p = 0.184). Conclusions The 3D‐printed bolus may reduce cardiopulmonary exposure in postmastectomy patients with volumetric modulated arc therapy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A clinical trial to compare a 3D‐printed bolus with a conventional bolus with the aim of reducing cardiopulmonary exposure in postmastectomy patients with volumetric modulated arc therapy

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…22 -24 Other medical applications for AM also include pharmaceutical 25 and surgical applications. 26,27…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[22][23][24] Other medical applications for AM also include pharmaceutical 25 and surgical applications. 26,27 Within the last decade, a number of studies have investigated the use of AM technologies to produce customized patient-specific RPs using different types of in-house and commercially available AM materials including thermoplastics and photopolymer resins. [28][29][30][31][32] To emulate patient-like geometry, it is essential to achieve heterogeneity in terms of electron density, which is often defined by Hounsfield units (HU) in CT imaging 33 ; common methods to vary the density during AM process include controlling the standard Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) printing parameters such as infilling percentage, infilling pattern, printing temperature, and material extrusion rate.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review on 3D-Printed Imaging and Dosimetry Phantoms in Radiation Therapy

Tino

Yeo

Leary

et al. 2019

Technol Cancer Res Treat

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Additive manufacturing or 3-dimensional printing has become a widespread technology with many applications in medicine. We have conducted a systematic review of its application in radiation oncology with a particular emphasis on the creation of phantoms for image quality assessment and radiation dosimetry. Traditionally used phantoms for quality assurance in radiotherapy are often constraint by simplified geometry and homogenous nature to perform imaging analysis or pretreatment dosimetric verification. Such phantoms are limited due to their ability in only representing the average human body, not only in proportion and radiation properties but also do not accommodate pathological features. These limiting factors restrict the patient-specific quality assurance process to verify image-guided positioning accuracy and/or dose accuracy in “water-like” condition. Methods and Results: English speaking manuscripts published since 2008 were searched in 5 databases (Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science). A significant increase in publications over the 10 years was observed with imaging and dosimetry phantoms about the same total number (52 vs 50). Key features of additive manufacturing are the customization with creation of realistic pathology as well as the ability to vary density and as such contrast. Commonly used printing materials, such as polylactic acid, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, high-impact polystyrene and many more, are utilized to achieve a wide range of achievable X-ray attenuation values from −1000 HU to 500 HU and higher. Not surprisingly, multimaterial printing using the polymer jetting technology is emerging as an important printing process with its ability to create heterogeneous phantoms for dosimetry in radiotherapy. Conclusion: Given the flexibility and increasing availability and low cost of additive manufacturing, it can be expected that its applications for radiation medicine will continue to increase.

show abstract

A Customized Tissue Compensator With 3-Dimensional Print Technique for Chest Wall Electron Irradiation

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

A clinical trial to compare a 3D‐printed bolus with a conventional bolus with the aim of reducing cardiopulmonary exposure in postmastectomy patients with volumetric modulated arc therapy

A clinical trial to compare a 3D‐printed bolus with a conventional bolus with the aim of reducing cardiopulmonary exposure in postmastectomy patients with volumetric modulated arc therapy

A Systematic Review on 3D-Printed Imaging and Dosimetry Phantoms in Radiation Therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About