Joseph Madamesila1, Philip McGeachy1, J Eduardo Villarreal Barajas1, Rao Khan2. 1. Department of Physics Astronomy and Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N2, Canada. 2. Department of Physics Astronomy and Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4N2, Canada. Electronic address: rfkhan@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present characterization, process flow, and applications of 3D fabricated low density phantoms for radiotherapy quality assurance (QA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Rostock 3D printer using polystyrene was employed to print slabs of varying relative electron densities (0.18-0.75). A CT scan was used to calibrate infill-to-density and characterize uniformity of the print. Two printed low relative density rods (0.18, 0.52) were benchmarked against a commercial CT-electron-density phantom. Density scaling of Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) was tested with EBT3 film for a 0.57 slab. Gamma criterion of 3% and 3 mm was used for analysis. RESULTS: 3D printed slabs demonstrated uniformity for densities 0.4-0.75. The printed 0.52 rod had close agreement with the commercial phantom. Dosimetric comparison for 0.57 density slab showed >95% agreement between calculation and measurements. CONCLUSION: 3D printing allows fabrication of variable density phantoms for QA needs of a small clinic. Crown
PURPOSE: To present characterization, process flow, and applications of 3D fabricated low density phantoms for radiotherapy quality assurance (QA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Rostock 3D printer using polystyrene was employed to print slabs of varying relative electron densities (0.18-0.75). A CT scan was used to calibrate infill-to-density and characterize uniformity of the print. Two printed low relative density rods (0.18, 0.52) were benchmarked against a commercial CT-electron-density phantom. Density scaling of Anisotropic Analytical Algorithm (AAA) was tested with EBT3 film for a 0.57 slab. Gamma criterion of 3% and 3 mm was used for analysis. RESULTS: 3D printed slabs demonstrated uniformity for densities 0.4-0.75. The printed 0.52 rod had close agreement with the commercial phantom. Dosimetric comparison for 0.57 density slab showed >95% agreement between calculation and measurements. CONCLUSION: 3D printing allows fabrication of variable density phantoms for QA needs of a small clinic. Crown
Authors: Kai Mei; Michael Geagan; Leonid Roshkovan; Harold I Litt; Grace J Gang; Nadav Shapira; J Webster Stayman; Peter B Noël Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Matthias Felix Haefner; Frederik Lars Giesel; Matthias Mattke; Daniel Rath; Moritz Wade; Jacob Kuypers; Alan Preuss; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Jens-Peter Schenk; Juergen Debus; Florian Sterzing; Roland Unterhinninghofen Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2018-01-08
Authors: Ji Woon Yea; Jae Won Park; Sung Kyu Kim; Dong Youn Kim; Jae Gu Kim; Chan Young Seo; Won Hyo Jeong; Man Youl Jeong; Se An Oh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 3.240