Premium
Sci‐Sat AM: Radiation Dosimetry and Practical Therapy Solutions ‐ 07: A mould room in a box – 3D scanning and printing technology in the radiotherapy clinic
Author(s) -
Sasaki David,
Rickey Daniel,
Dubey Arbind,
Alpuche Aviles Jorge E.,
Johnson Kate,
Sharma Ankur,
Leylek Ahmet,
Harris Chad,
Boyer Todd,
McCurdy Boyd,
Butler Jim,
Koul Rashmi
Publication year - 2016
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 - 10.1118/1.4961861
Subject(s) - imaging phantom , scanner , dosimetry , 3d printing , 3d printed , electromagnetic shielding , medical physics , quality assurance , linear particle accelerator , 3d scanning , nuclear medicine , 3d printer , biomedical engineering , medicine , materials science , computer science , optics , beam (structure) , engineering , physics , mechanical engineering , artificial intelligence , external quality assessment , pathology , composite material
Purpose: We describe the process by which our centre is currently implementing 3D printing and scanning technology for treatment accessory fabrication. This technology can increase efficiency and accuracy of accessory design, production and placement during daily use. Methods: A low‐cost 3D printer and 3D optical scanner have been purchased and are being commissioned for clinical use. Commissioning includes assessing: the accuracy of the 3D scanner through comparison with high resolution CT images; the dosimetric characteristics of polylactic acid (PLA) for electron beams; the clinical utility of the technology, and; methods for quality assurance. Results: The agreement between meshes generated using the 3D scanner and CT data was within 2 millimeters for an anthropomorphic head phantom. In terms of electron beam attenuation, 1 centimetre of printed PLA was found equivalent to 1.17 cm of water. In proof‐of‐concept tests, several types of treatment accessories have been prototyped to date that will benefit from this technology. These include electron and photon bolus for areas with complex surface contours including the ear for electron treatments, the extremities for photon treatments and lead shielding for orthovoltage treatments. Imaging with CT and x‐ray showed minimal defects, which will have no significant clinical impact. Geometric fidelity and fit to volunteers and patients was found to be excellent. Conclusions: 3D Printing and scanning can increase efficiency in the clinic for treatments requiring custom accessories. Customized boluses and shielding had excellent fit and reduced uncertainty in positioning.