CT‐less electron radiotherapy simulation and planning with a consumer 3D camera

Skinner, Lawrie; Knopp, Rick; Wang, Yichun; Dubrowski, Piotr; Bush, Karl; Limmer, Alyssa; Trakul, Nicholas; Million, Lynn; Marquez, Carol; Yu, Amy S.

doi:10.1002/acm2.13283

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The STL produced from the scan data using Artec Studio was converted to a stack of DICOM CT images using the 3D Slicer software (version 4.13.0, The Slicer Community), 16 by importing the STL as a segmentation, converting the segmentation data to a binary label map volume using an oversampling factor specified to achieve the desired CT pixel and slice spacing, and exporting this data to the DICOM format. This method is similar to that described by Skinner et al 11 This produced a dataset in which the voxels enclosed in the surface geometry were assigned a CT number of 1, and other voxels assigned a CT number of 0. To obtain a water‐equivalent phantom the rescale intercept and rescale slope attributes contained in the exported DICOM files were changed to −1000 and 1000 (to convert initial air and tissue values of 0 and 1 to −1000 and 0 HU) respectively.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of inexpensive smartphones has been described by LeCompte et al 5 and Kang et al 7 Douglass and Santos, 4 Maxwell et al 8 and Bridger et al 10 have described the use of consumer‐grade camera‐based photogrammetry for brachytherapy surface mould and bolus design. Yoshida et al 9 and Skinner et al 11 have described the use of consumer‐grade 3D camera systems like the Microsoft Kinect and Intel RealSense for device production. While these solutions are cost‐effective, they are often not metrology grade (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Optical 3D scanning is a safe, cost-effective, easy-to-use solution to acquire topographical 3D surface data. In addition to the use of optical surface reconstruction methods for the production of treatment devices such as bolus, moulds and shields, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] optical scanning can also be used for patient position verification, 12 as well as to overcome limited field of view in simulation imaging. 13 Use of 3D optical scanning can reduce the need for radiographic imaging and thereby reduce radiation exposure, facilitate the production of treatment devices prior to CT simulation and is particularly suited to treatment of superficial disease, where the treatment volume is defined on the patient surface.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 Use of 3D optical scanning can reduce the need for radiographic imaging and thereby reduce radiation exposure, facilitate the production of treatment devices prior to CT simulation and is particularly suited to treatment of superficial disease, where the treatment volume is defined on the patient surface. 7,11 The technologies used for 3D scanning vary in cost, complexity and precision. The use of inexpensive smartphones has been described by LeCompte et al 5 and Kang et al 7 Douglass and Santos, 4 Maxwell et al 8 and Bridger et al 10 have described the use of consumer-grade camera-based photogrammetry for brachytherapy surface mould and bolus design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Combined with computer-aided design (CAD) software, simple devices, such as uniform thickness bolus or shields 14 or nose blocks, can be easily created. The design of complex devices (such as non-uniform compensators) can require the use of a treatment-planning system including a dose calculation engine, which can be achieved through the creation of pseudo-CT dataset 11,15 or where the treatment planning system supports the STL format (e.g. RayStation).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of optical 3D scanning system for radiotherapy use

Crowe

Luscombe

Maxwell

et al. 2021

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Optical three‐dimensional scanning devices can produce geometrically accurate, high‐resolution models of patients suitable for clinical use. This article describes the use of a metrology‐grade structured light scanner for the design and production of radiotherapy medical devices and synthetic water‐equivalent computer tomography images. Methods Following commissioning of the device by scanning objects of known properties, 173 scans were performed on 26 volunteers, with observations of subjects and operators collected. Results The fit of devices produced using these scans was assessed, and a workflow for the design of complex devices using a treatment planning system was identified. Conclusions Recommendations are provided on the use of the device within a radiation oncology department.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of optical 3D scanning system for radiotherapy use

Crowe

Luscombe

Maxwell

et al. 2021

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

An evaluation of consumer smartphones for generating bolus and surface mould applicators for radiation oncology

Bridger,

Caraça Santos,

Reich

et al. 2024

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of Computed Tomography (CT) imaging data to create 3D printable patient‐specific devices for radiation oncology purposes is already well established in the literature and has shown to have superior conformity than conventional methods. Using non‐ionizing radiation imaging techniques such as photogrammetry or laser scanners in‐lieu of a CT scanner presents many desirable benefits including reduced imaging dose and fabrication of the device can be completed prior to simulation. With recent advancements in smartphone‐based technology, photographic and LiDAR‐based technologies are more readily available than ever before and to a high level of quality. As a result, these non‐ionizing radiation imaging methods are now able to generate patient‐specific devices that can be acceptable for clinical use.PurposeIn this work, we aim to determine if smartphones can be used by radiation oncologists or other radiation oncology staff to generate bolus or brachytherapy surface moulds instead of conventional CT with equivalent or comparable accuracy.MethodsThis work involved two separate studies: a phantom and participant study. For the phantom study, a RANDO anthropomorphic phantom (limited to the nose region) was used to generate 3D models based on three different imaging techniques: conventional CT, photogrammetry & LiDAR which were both acquired on a smartphone. Virtual boli were designed in Blender and 3D printed from PLA plastic material. The conformity of each printed boli was assessed by measuring the air gap volume and approximate thickness between the phantom & bolus acquired together on a CT. For the participant study, photographs, and a LiDAR scan of four volunteers were captured using an iPhone 13 Pro™ to assess their feasibility for generating human models. Each virtual 3D model was visually assessed to identify any issues in their reconstruction. The LiDAR models were registered to the photogrammetry models where a distance to agreement analysis was performed to assess their level of similarity. Additionally, a 3D virtual bolus was designed and printed using ABS material from all models to assess their conformity onto the participants skin surface using a verbal feedback method.ResultsThe photogrammetry derived bolus showed comparable conformity to the CT derived bolus while the LiDAR derived bolus showed poorer conformity as shown by their respective air gap volume and thickness measurements. The reconstruction quality of both the photogrammetry and LiDAR models of the volunteers was inadequate in regions of facial hair and occlusion, which may lead to clinically unacceptable patient‐specific device that are created from these areas. All participants found the photogrammetry 3D printed bolus to conform to their nose region with minimal room to move while three of the four participants found the LiDAR was acceptable and could be positioned comfortably over their entire nose.ConclusionsSmartphone‐based photogrammetry and LiDAR software show great potential for future use in generating 3D reference models for radiation oncology purposes. Further investigations into whether they can be used to fabricate clinically acceptable patient‐specific devices on a larger and more diverse cohort of participants and anatomical locations is required for a thorough validation of their clinical usefulness.

show abstract