Premium
WE‐F‐16A‐06: Using 3D Printers to Create Complex Phantoms for Dose Verification, Quality Assurance, and Treatment Planning System Commissioning in Radiotherapy
Author(s) -
Kassaee A,
Ding X,
McDonough J,
Reiche M,
Witztum A,
Teo B
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
medical physics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.473
H-Index - 180
eISSN - 2473-4209
pISSN - 0094-2405
DOI - 10.1118/1.4889473
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , quality assurance , radiation treatment planning , medical physics , proton therapy , dosimetry , dose profile , nuclear medicine , materials science , computer science , radiation therapy , biomedical engineering , beam (structure) , physics , optics , medicine , radiology , external quality assessment , pathology
Purpose: To use 3D printers to design and construct complex geometrical phantoms for commissioning treatment planning systems, dose calculation algorithms, quality assurance (QA), dose delivery, and patient dose verifications. Methods: In radiotherapy, complex geometrical phantoms are often required for dose verification, dose delivery and calculation algorithm validation. Presently, fabrication of customized phantoms is limited due to time, expense and challenges in machining of complex shapes. In this work, we designed and utilized 3D printers to fabricate two phantoms for QA purposes. One phantom includes hills and valleys (HV) for verification of intensity modulated radiotherapy for photons, and protons (IMRT and IMPT). The other phantom includes cylindrical cavities (CC) of various sizes for dose verification of inhomogeneities. We evaluated the HV phantoms for an IMPT beam, and the CC phantom to study various inhomogeneity configurations using photon, electron, and proton beams. Gafcromic ™ films were used to quantify the dose distributions delivered to the phantoms. Results: The HV phantom has dimensions of 12 cm × 12 cm and consists of one row and one column of five peaks with heights ranging from 2 to 5 cm. The CC phantom has a size 10 cm × 14 cm and includes 6 cylindrical cavities with length of 7.2 cm and diameters ranging from 0.6 to 1.2 cm. The IMPT evaluation using the HV phantom shows good agreement as compared to the dose distribution calculated with treatment planning system. The CC phantom also shows reasonable agreements for using different algorithms for each beam modalities. Conclusion: 3D printers with submillimiter resolutions are capable of printing complex phantoms for dose verification and QA in radiotherapy. As printing costs decrease and the technology becomes widely available, phantom design and construction will be readily available to any clinic for testing geometries that were not previously feasible.