Three-dimensional printer-generated patient-specific phantom for artificial in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy quality assurance

Kamomae, Takeshi; Shimizu, Hidetoshi; Nakaya, Takayoshi; Okudaira, Kuniyasu; Aoyama, Tomoo; Oguchi, Hiroshi; Komori, Masataka; Kawamura, Mitsuru; Ohtakara, Kazuhiro; Monzen, Hajime; Itoh, Yoshio; Naganawa, Shinji

doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.10.005

Cited by 74 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the papers used, 10 have assessed the resolution or accuracy of the printer by quantitative (numerical) comparison, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] 10 by qualitative (figural) comparison, 22,[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] and 14 by both quantitative and qualitative comparison. 10,21,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] Sixteen of the research articles do not include a verification of the printers' resolutions.…”

Section: A Characterization Of 3d-printed Phantom Spatial Accuracymentioning

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

Section: A Characterization Of 3d-printed Phantom Spatial Accuracymentioning

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

show abstract

“…3 have exhibited the same behavior with a high correlation between the CT images’ profiles of the phantom and those of the patient. In contrary, methods with a constant infill density present wide HU variations due to the large air gaps created by the employed patterns 5,14 . The same artifact occurs during the fabrication of bone tissues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical Note: Accurate replication of soft and bone tissues with 3D printing

Okkalidis

Marinakis²

2020

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The fabrication of a realistic patient-specific skull phantom employing for the first time a new filament extrusion rate method, for the accurate replication of soft and bone tissues both in Hounsfield Units (HU) range and in texture. Methods: An in-house developed software was used for the fabrication of the phantom taking into account all the HU of a patient's Computed Tomography (CT) images, replicating the organs voxelby-voxel without the need of a uniform three-dimensional printing pattern. Two commercially available materials were used; the polylactic acid (PLA) filament for the soft tissues, and a mixture of 50% of PLA and 50% of gravimetric powdered stone for the bone tissues. Additionally, a layer of small amounts of PLA were also extruded on the fabricated bones. Results: The replicated anatomy of the phantom was very close to the patient's one, achieving a similar range of HU without creating any air gaps and variations on the replicated HU, which are the main artifacts observed when a standard infill density and pattern is employed. The maximum measured HU values of the replicated bone tissues were at about 900. Conclusions: The results indicated an accurate replication of the soft tissues HU, and a significant improvement of the bone tissue HU replication. Further investigation on materials of high density in conjunction with the filament extrusion rate method may provide custom-made realistic phantoms for diagnostic and lower energy radiation such as in superficial, orthovoltage, and electron beam radiotherapy.

show abstract

“…The Polylactic Acid (PLA) 3D printing filament (PrimaFilaments, Europe, Sweden) was employed throughout this work because it has been shown in the literature that this type of material was more appropriate for the fabrication of 3D printed human phantoms. [10][11][12][13][14] An in-house software tool was developed using Matlab 2015 for the production of the ".gcode" file needed to control the 3D printer in applying the PbP method and contained all the required information for the fabrication of an object.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel 3D printing method for accurate anatomy replication in patient‐specific phantoms

Okkalidis

2018

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Three-dimensional printer-generated patient-specific phantom for artificial in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy quality assurance

Cited by 74 publications

References 31 publications

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

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

Technical Note: Accurate replication of soft and bone tissues with 3D printing

A novel 3D printing method for accurate anatomy replication in patient‐specific phantoms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About