Reproduction of a conventional anthropomorphic female chest phantom by 3D-printing: Comparison of image contrasts and absorbed doses in CT.
3D-printing
X-ray imaging
anthropomorphic phantom
quality assurance
Journal
Medical physics
ISSN: 2473-4209
Titre abrégé: Med Phys
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0425746
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
revised:
10
05
2023
received:
23
03
2023
accepted:
11
06
2023
medline:
15
8
2023
pubmed:
7
7
2023
entrez:
7
7
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The production of individualized anthropomorphic phantoms via three-dimensional (3D) printing methods offers promising possibilities to assess and optimize radiation exposures for specifically relevant patient groups (i.e., overweighed or pregnant persons) that are not adequately represented by standardized anthropomorphic phantoms. However, the equivalence of printed phantoms must be demonstrated exemplarily with respect to the resulting image contrasts and dose distributions. To reproduce a conventionally produced anthropomorphic phantom of a female chest and breasts and to evaluate their equivalence with respect to image contrasts and absorbed doses at the example of a computed tomography (CT) examination of the chest. In a first step, the effect of different print settings on the CT values of printed samples was systematically investigated. Subsequently, a transversal slice and breast add-ons of a conventionally produced female body phantom were reproduced using a multi-material extrusion-based printer, considering six different types of tissues (muscle, lung, adipose, and glandular breast tissue, as well as bone and cartilage). CT images of the printed and conventionally produced phantom parts were evaluated with respect to their geometric correspondence, image contrasts, and absorbed doses measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters. CT values of printed objects are highly sensitive to the selected print settings. The soft tissues of the conventionally produced phantom could be reproduced with a good agreement. Minor differences in CT values were observed for bone and lung tissue, whereas absorbed doses to the relevant tissues were identical within the measurement uncertainties. 3D-printed phantoms are with exception of minor contrast differences equivalent to their conventionally manufactured counterparts. When comparing the two production techniques, it is important to note that conventionally manufactured phantoms should not be considered as absolute benchmarks, as they also only approximate the human body in terms of its absorption, and attenuation of x-rays as well as its geometry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The production of individualized anthropomorphic phantoms via three-dimensional (3D) printing methods offers promising possibilities to assess and optimize radiation exposures for specifically relevant patient groups (i.e., overweighed or pregnant persons) that are not adequately represented by standardized anthropomorphic phantoms. However, the equivalence of printed phantoms must be demonstrated exemplarily with respect to the resulting image contrasts and dose distributions.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To reproduce a conventionally produced anthropomorphic phantom of a female chest and breasts and to evaluate their equivalence with respect to image contrasts and absorbed doses at the example of a computed tomography (CT) examination of the chest.
METHODS
METHODS
In a first step, the effect of different print settings on the CT values of printed samples was systematically investigated. Subsequently, a transversal slice and breast add-ons of a conventionally produced female body phantom were reproduced using a multi-material extrusion-based printer, considering six different types of tissues (muscle, lung, adipose, and glandular breast tissue, as well as bone and cartilage). CT images of the printed and conventionally produced phantom parts were evaluated with respect to their geometric correspondence, image contrasts, and absorbed doses measured using thermoluminescent dosimeters.
RESULTS
RESULTS
CT values of printed objects are highly sensitive to the selected print settings. The soft tissues of the conventionally produced phantom could be reproduced with a good agreement. Minor differences in CT values were observed for bone and lung tissue, whereas absorbed doses to the relevant tissues were identical within the measurement uncertainties.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
3D-printed phantoms are with exception of minor contrast differences equivalent to their conventionally manufactured counterparts. When comparing the two production techniques, it is important to note that conventionally manufactured phantoms should not be considered as absolute benchmarks, as they also only approximate the human body in terms of its absorption, and attenuation of x-rays as well as its geometry.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4734-4743Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.
Références
Mille MM, Griffin KT, Maass-Moreno R, Lee C. Fabrication of a pediatric torso phantom with multiple tissues represented using a dual nozzle thermoplastic 3D printer. J App Clin Med Phys. 2020;21(11):226-236. doi:10.1002/acm2.13064
Tino RB, Yeo AU, Brandt M, Leary M, Kron T. A customizable anthropomorphic phantom for dosimetric verification of 3D-printed lung, tissue, and bone density materials. Med Phys. 2021;49(1):52-69. doi:10.1002/mp.15364
Ehler ED, Barney BM, Higgins PD, Dusenbery KE. Patient specific 3D printed phantom for IMRT quality assurance. Phys Med Biol. 2014;59:5763. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/59/19/5763
Craft DF, Howell RM. Preparation and fabrication of a full-scale, sagittal-sliced, 3D-printed, patient-specific radiotherapy phantom. J App Clin Med Phys. 2017;18(5):285-292. doi:10.1002/acm2.12162
Hatamikia S, Kronreif G, Unger A, et al. 3D printed patient-specific thorax phantom with realistic heterogenous bone radiopacity using filament printer technology. Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik. 2022;32(4):438-452. doi:10.1016/j.zemedi.2022.02.001
Choi Y, Lee IJ, Park K, et al. Patient-specific quality assurance using a 3D-Printed chest phantom for intraoperative radiotherapy in breast cancer. Original Research. Front Oncol. 2021:11. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.629927
Madamesila J, McGeachy P, Villarreal Barajas JE, Khan R. Characterizing 3D printing in the fabrication of variable density phantoms for quality assurance of radiotherapy. Physica Medica. 2016;32(1):242-247. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.013
Savi M, Andrade MAB, Potiens MPA. Commercial filament testing for use in 3D printed phantoms. Radiat Phys Chem. 2020;174:108906. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2020.108906
Okkalidis N, Chatzigeorgiou C, Okkalides D. Assessment of 11 available materials with custom three-dimensional-printing patterns for the simulation of muscle, fat, and lung Hounsfield units in patient-specific phantoms. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther. 2017;1(1). doi:10.1115/1.4038228
Kunert P, Trinkl S, Giussani A, Reichert D, Brix G. Tissue equivalence of 3D printing materials with respect to attenuation and absorption of X-rays used for diagnostic and interventional imaging. Med Phys. 2022;49(12):7766-7778. doi:10.1002/mp.15987
Leng S, Chen B, Vrieze T, et al. Construction of realistic phantoms from patient images and a commercial three-dimensional printer. J Med Imaging (Bellingham, Wash). 2016;3(3):033501. doi:10.1117/1.JMI.3.3.033501
Tillery H, Moore M, Gallagher KJ, et al. Personalized 3D-printed anthropomorphic whole-body phantom irradiated by protons, photons, and neutrons. Article. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2022;8(2)027004. doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ac4d04
Hazelaar C, van Eijnatten M, Dahele M, et al. Using 3D printing techniques to create an anthropomorphic thorax phantom for medical imaging purposes. Med Phys. 2018;45(1):92-100. doi:10.1002/mp.12644
Craft D, Burgett E, Howell R. EP-1435: evaluation of single material and multimaterial patient-specific, 3D-printed radiotherapy phantoms. Radiother Oncol. 2017;123:S765-S766. doi:10.1016/S0167-8140(17)31870-4
Kamomae T, Shimizu H, Nakaya T, et al. Three-dimensional printer-generated patient-specific phantom for artificial in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy quality assurance. Physica Medica. 2017;44:205-211. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.10.005
Kim SY, Park JW, Park J, Yea JW, Oh SA. Fabrication of 3D printed head phantom using plaster mixed with polylactic acid powder for patient-specific QA in intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):1-10. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-22520-6
Schneider CA, Rasband WS, Eliceiri KW. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):671-675. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2089
Fedorov A, Beichel R, Kalpathy-Cramer J, et al. 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;30(9):1323-1341. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2012.05.001
Brix G, Lechel U, Veit R, et al. Assessment of a theoretical formalism for dose estimation in CT: an anthropomorphic phantom study. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(7):1275-1284. doi:10.1007/s00330-004-2267-7
Kalra A. Developing FE human models from medical images. Basic Finite Element Method as Applied to Injury Biomechanics. Elsevier; 2018:389-415.
Ikeda T. Estimating age at death based on costal cartilage calcification. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2017;243(4):237-246.
Lev M, Gonzalez R. CT angiography and CT perfusion imaging. Brain Mapping: The Methods. Elsevier; 2002:427-484.
Schneider W, Bortfeld T, Schlegel W. Correlation between CT numbers and tissue parameters needed for Monte Carlo simulations of clinical dose distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2000;45(2):459.
Ramian J, Ramian J, Dziob D. Thermal deformations of thermoplast during 3D printing: warping in the case of ABS. Materials. 2021;14(22):7070. doi:10.3390/ma14227070
Batawil N, Sabiq S. Hounsfield unit for the diagnosis of bone mineral density disease: a proof of concept study. Radiography. 2016;22(2):e93-e98.
Tino R, Yeo A, Brandt M, Leary M, Kron T. The interlace deposition method of bone equivalent material extrusion 3D printing for imaging in radiotherapy. Mater Des. 2021;199:109439. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2020.109439
Okkalidis N, Bliznakova K. A voxel-by-voxel method for mixing two filaments during a 3D printing process for soft-tissue replication in an anthropomorphic breast phantom. Phys Med Biol. 2022;67(24):245019. doi:10.1088/1361-6560/aca640
Okkalidis N, Bliznakova K, Kolev N. A filament 3D printing approach for CT-compatible bone tissues replication. Physica Medica. 2022;102:96-102. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.09.009
Okkalidis N. A novel 3D printing method for accurate anatomy replication in patient-specific phantoms. Med Phys. 2018;45(10):4600-4606. doi:10.1002/mp.13154
Mei K, Geagan M, Roshkovan L, et al. Three-dimensional printing of patient-specific lung phantoms for CT imaging: emulating lung tissue with accurate attenuation profiles and textures. Med Phys. 2022;49(2):825-835. doi:10.1002/mp.15407