Skip to main content
Log in

An anthropomorphic 3D printed inhomogeneity thorax phantom slab for SBRT commissioning and quality assurance

  • Scientific Paper
  • Published:
Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anthropomorphic phantoms with tissue equivalency are required in radiotherapy for quality assurance of imaging and dosimetric processes used in radiotherapy treatments. Commercial phantoms are expensive and provide limited approximation to patient geometry and tissue equivalency. In this study, a 5 cm thick anthropomorphic thoracic slab phantom was designed and 3D printed using models exported from a CT dataset to demonstrate the feasibility of manufacturing anthropomorphic 3D printed phantoms onsite in a clinical radiotherapy department. The 3D printed phantom was manufactured with polylactic acid with an in-fill density of 80% to simulate tissue density and 26% to simulate lung density. A common radio-opacifier, barium sulfate (BaSO4), was added 6% w/w to an epoxy resin mixture to simulate similar HU numbers for bone equivalency. A half-cylindrical shape was cropped away from the spine region to allow insertion of the bone equivalent mixture. Two Gafchromic™ EBT3 film strips were inserted into the 3D printed phantom to measure the delivery of two stereotactic radiotherapy plans targeting lung and bone lesions respectively. Results were analysed within SNC Patient with a low dose threshold of 10% and a gamma criterion of 3%/2 mm and 5%/1 mm. The resulting gamma pass rate across both criterions for lung and bone were ≥ 95% and approximately 85% respectively. Results shows that a cost-effective anthropomorphic 3D printed phantom with realistic heterogeneity simulation can be fabricated in departments with access a suitable 3D printer, which can be used for performing commissioning and quality assurance for stereotactic type radiotherapy to lesions in the presence of heterogeneity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data available on request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. Tino RB, Yeo AU, Brandt M, Leary M, Kron T (2022) A customizable anthropomorphic phantom for dosimetric verification of 3D-printed lung, tissue, and bone density materials. Med Phys 49(1):52–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kairn T, Zahrani M, Cassim N, Livingstone AG, Charles PH, Crowe SB (2020) Quasi-simultaneous 3D printing of muscle-, lung- and bone-equivalent media: a proof-of-concept study. Phys Eng Sci Med 43(2):701–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-020-00864-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ehler ED, Barney BM, Higgins PD, Dusenbery KE (2014) Patient specific 3D printed phantom for IMRT quality assurance. Phys Med Biol 59(19):5763–5773. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/59/19/5763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Leary M et al (2015) Additive manufacture of custom radiation dosimetry phantoms: an automated method compatible with commercial polymer 3D printers. Mater Des 86:487–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2015.07.052

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tino R, Yeo A, Leary M, Brandt M, Kron T (2019) A systematic review on 3D-printed imaging and dosimetry phantoms in radiation therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 18:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1533033819870208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goodall SK, Rampant P, Smith W, Waterhouse D, Rowshanfarzad P, Ebert MA (2021) Investigation of the effects of spinal surgical implants on radiotherapy dosimetry: a study of 3D printed phantoms. Med Phys 48(8):4586–4597. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ceh J et al (2017) Bismuth infusion of ABS enables additive manufacturing of complex radiological phantoms and shielding equipment. Sensors (Switzerland) 17(3):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/s17030459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Menzel H-G (2014) International commission on radiation units and measurements. J Int Commun Radiat Units Meas 14(2):1–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/ndx006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Benedict SH et al (2010) Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys 37(8):4078–4101. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3438081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Halvorsen PH et al (2017) AAPM-RSS medical physics practice guideline 9.a. for SRS-SBRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 18(5):10–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12146

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. IAEA (2016) COMMISSIONING OF RADIOTHERAPY TREATMENT PLANNING SYSTEMS: testing for typical external beam treatment techniques. International Atomic Energy Agency

  12. Tino R, Leary M, Yeo A, Kyriakou E, Kron T, Brandt M (2020) Additive manufacturing in radiation oncology: a review of clinical practice, emerging trends and research opportunities. Int J Extrem Manuf 2(1):012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2631-7990/ab70af

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kairn T, Peet S, Yu L, Crowe S (2018) Long-term reliability of optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters. World Congr Med Phys Biomed Eng 68(3):561–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-9023-3_103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Van der Walt M, Crabtree T, Albantow C (2019) PLA as a suitable 3D printing thermoplastic for use in external beam radiotherapy. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 42(4):1165–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-019-00818-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamedani BA, Melvin A, Vaheesan K, Gadani S, Pereira K, Hall AF (2018) Three-dimensional printing CT-derived objects with controllable radiopacity. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(2):317–328. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12278

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tino R, Leary M, Yeo A, Brandt M, Kron T (2019) Gyroid structures for 3D-printed heterogeneous radiotherapy phantoms. Phys Med Biol 64(21):21NT05. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab48ab

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zavan R, McGeachy P, Madamesila J, Villarreal-Barajas JE, Khan R (2018) Verification of Acuros XB dose algorithm using 3D printed low-density phantoms for clinical photon beams. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(3):32–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12299

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Markwell T, Sim L, Zawlodzka S (2020) Can 3D printed phantoms accurately model low-density lung? Investigating the accuracy of Pinnacle for low density lung calculations using 3D printed phantoms

  19. Ehler E, Craft D, Rong Y (2018) 3D printing technology will eventually eliminate the need of purchasing commercial phantoms for clinical medical physics QA procedures. J Appl Clin Med Phys 19(4):8–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12392

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Okkalidis N, Marinakis G (2020) Technical note: accurate replication of soft and bone tissues with 3D printing. Med Phys 47(5):2206–2211. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Crowe SB et al (2020) Impact of radiopacified bone cement on radiotherapy dose calculation. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 14:12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phro.2020.04.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Dancewicz OL, Sylvander SR, Markwell TS, Crowe SB, Trapp JV (2017) Radiological properties of 3D printed materials in kilovoltage and megavoltage photon beams. Phys Medica 38:111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.05.051

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Australian Government: National Health and Medical Research Council (2018) Conduct in human research national statement on ethical conduct in human research. 2007

  24. Lewis D, Micke A, Yu X, Chan MF (2012) An efficient protocol for radiochromic film dosimetry combining calibration and measurement in a single scan. Med Phys 39(10):6339–6350. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4754797

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study has received support from the Health Education Training Institute Rural Research Capacity Building Program (HETI RRCBP). The author would also like to thank David Schmidt, Kerith Duncanson and Claire Dempsey for their support and contributions throughout the course of this project.

Funding

This work was supported by the Health Education and Research Institute (HETI) for the Rural Research Capacity Building Program (RRCBP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SH wrote the initial draft and subsequent editing, contributed to study design, and performed the investigation and analysis. DB & SC provided supervision, assisted in study design, reviewed the manuscript and helped with visualization. GD built the test inserts and post-processed the 3D phantom while AS designed and built the 3D phantom.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen How.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study has been categorised as a Quality Improvement (QI) project and does not require ethical approval as reviewed by the Greater Western Human Research Ethics Committee (GWHREC).

Consent to participate

Written informed consent to use the de-identified CT dataset for academic research purposes was obtained by the department.

Consent to publish

Written informed consent to publish not identifiable data was obtained by the department.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

How, S., Banjade, D., Crowe, S. et al. An anthropomorphic 3D printed inhomogeneity thorax phantom slab for SBRT commissioning and quality assurance. Phys Eng Sci Med 46, 575–583 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01233-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-023-01233-8

Keywords

Navigation