Abdo-Man: a 3D-printed anthropomorphic phantom for validating quantitative SIRT

Gear, Jonathan; Cummings, Craig; Craig, Allison J; Divoli, A.; Long, Clive D. C.; Tapner, Michael; Flux, Glenn

doi:10.1186/s40658-016-0151-6

Cited by 64 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Leng et al published a comparable range of 50 to 75 HU (TangoBlackPlus) and 105 to 125 HU (VeroWhitePlus) . Similar results were also obtained by Gear et al with (96 ± 15) HU (TangoBlackPlus) and (127 ± 15) HU (VeroWhitePlus) …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Three‐dimensional (3D) printing allows for the fabrication of medical devices with complex geometries, such as soft actuators and robots that can be used in image‐guided interventions. This study investigates flexible and rigid 3D‐printing materials in terms of their impact on multimodal medical imaging. Methods The generation of artifacts in clinical computer tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging was evaluated for six flexible and three rigid materials, each with a cubical and a cylindrical geometry, and for one exemplary flexible fluidic actuator. Additionally, CT Hounsfield units (HU) were quantified for various parameter sets iterating peak voltage, x‐ray tube current, slice thickness, and convolution kernel. Results We found the image artifacts caused by the materials to be negligible in both CT and MR images. The HU values mainly depended on the elemental composition of the materials and applied peak voltage was ranging between 80 and 140 kVp. Flexible, nonsilicone‐based materials were ranged between 51 and 114 HU. The voltage dependency was less than 29 HU. Flexible, silicone‐based materials were ranged between 60 and 365 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was as large as 172 HU. Rigid materials ranged between −69 and 132 HU. The voltage‐dependent influence was <33 HU. Conclusions All tested materials may be employed for devices placed in the field of view during CT and MR imaging as no significant artifacts were measured. Moreover, the material selection in CT could be based on the desired visibility of the material depending on the application. Given the wide availability of the tested materials, we expect our results to have a positive impact on the development of devices and robots for image‐guided interventions.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(I) (a) Lesion design, (b) Lesion filling, (c) Connection port, ( II ) (a) Lesion and support rods placement at the phantom base, (b) Phantom base fitted to the phantom body . Figure license: Gear, et al #bib2016, Abdo‐Man: 3D printed anthropomorphic phantom for validating quantitative SIRT .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Printing technology, capable of producing three-dimensional (3D) objects, has evolved in recent years and provides potential for developing reproducible and sophisticated physical phantoms. 3D printing technology can help rapidly develop relatively low cost phantoms with appropriate complexities, which are useful in imaging or dosimetry measurements. The need for more realistic phantoms is emerging since imaging systems are now capable of acquiring multimodal and multiparametric data. This review addresses three main questions about the 3D printers currently in use, and their produced materials. The first question investigates whether the resolution of 3D printers is sufficient for existing imaging technologies. The second question explores if the materials of 3D-printed phantoms can produce realistic images representing various tissues and organs as taken by different imaging modalities such as computer tomography (CT), positron emission tomography (PET), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound (US), and mammography. The emergence of multimodal imaging increases the need for phantoms that can be scanned using different imaging modalities. The third question probes the feasibility and easiness of "printing" radioactive or nonradioactive solutions during the printing process. Methods: A systematic review of medical imaging studies published after January 2013 is performed using strict inclusion criteria. The databases used were Scopus and Web of Knowledge with specific search terms. In total, 139 papers were identified; however, only 50 were classified as relevant for this paper. In this review, following an appropriate introduction and literature research strategy, all 50 articles are presented in detail. A summary of tables and example figures of the most recent advances in 3D printing for the purposes of phantoms across different imaging modalities are provided. Results: All 50 studies printed and scanned phantoms in either CT, PET, SPECT, mammography, MRI, and US-or a combination of those modalities. According to the literature, different parameters were evaluated depending on the imaging modality used. Almost all papers evaluated more than two parameters, with the most common being Hounsfield units, density, attenuation and speed of sound. Conclusions: The development of this field is rapidly evolving and becoming more refined. There is potential to reach the ultimate goal of using 3D phantoms to get feedback on imaging scanners and reconstruction algorithms more regularly. Although the development of imaging phantoms is evident, there are still some limitations to address: One of which is printing accuracy, due to the printer properties. Another limitation is the materials available to print: There are not enough materials to mimic all the tissue properties. For example, one material can mimic one property-such as the density of real tissue-but not any other property, like speed of sound or attenuation.

show abstract

“…The rendered outcomes represent the tissues exposed to radiation, as well as the amount of absorbed dose in the tumors and the healthy tissues. Abdo‐Man [GCC*16] involves a pipeline (imaging, organ definition, 3D mesh generation, 3D printing) for the production of a 3D printed anthropomorphic phantom that can be used as a validation tool for dosimetry.…”

Section: Taxonomy and Presentation Of Previous Work In Vc For Rtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within this category, we encounter also most of the integrable applications—in particular, within the spatial evaluation subgroup. It is of particular interest that chronologically older works [HST87, LFP*90, MYKO91, IFP95, IFP96, IFP97] that were mainly concerned with 2D representations are well‐established in clinical routine, while newer 3D approaches [GDF*00, LCS*13, FC16, GCC*16] have remained at a developmental stage. A lot of VR/AR approaches are also, at least partially, integrable—the most important example being the work of Ward et al [WPB*11].…”

Section: Taxonomy and Presentation Of Previous Work In Vc For Rtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Before that, only a rough, single slice‐based way was possible [LFP*90, IFP95, IFP96, IFP97]. Additionally, different anatomical densities are incorporated, and the radiation dose is calculated in a few seconds within the 3D model of a patient [GDF*00, FC16, GCC*16]. Finally, RT is efficiently informed about the dose interaction with distinct tissues.…”

Section: Outlook From the Rt Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

State‐of‐the‐Art Report: Visual Computing in Radiation Therapy Planning

Schlachter

Raidou

Muren

et al. 2019

Computer Graphics Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Radiation therapy (RT) is one of the major curative approaches for cancer. It is a complex and risky treatment approach, which requires precise planning, prior to the administration of the treatment. Visual Computing (VC) is a fundamental component of RT planning, providing solutions in all parts of the process—from imaging to delivery. Despite the significant technological advancements of RT over the last decades, there are still many challenges to address. This survey provides an overview of the compound planning process of RT, and of the ways that VC has supported RT in all its facets. The RT planning process is described to enable a basic understanding in the involved data, users and workflow steps. A systematic categorization and an extensive analysis of existing literature in the joint VC/RT research is presented, covering the entire planning process. The survey concludes with a discussion on lessons learnt, current status, open challenges, and future directions in VC/RT research.

show abstract

Abdo-Man: a 3D-printed anthropomorphic phantom for validating quantitative SIRT

Cited by 64 publications

References 19 publications

CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions

CT and MRI compatibility of flexible 3D‐printed materials for soft actuators and robots used in image‐guided interventions

Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound

State‐of‐the‐Art Report: Visual Computing in Radiation Therapy Planning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About