Rosalinda Ricotti1, Andrea Vavassori2, Alessia Bazani3, Delia Ciardo2, Floriana Pansini3, Ruggero Spoto4, Vittorio Sammarco5, Federica Cattani3, Guido Baroni6, Roberto Orecchia7, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: rosalinda.ricotti@ieo.it. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 3. Unit of Medical Physics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 5. Tecniche di radiologia medica, per immagini e radioterapia, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 6. Dipartimento di Elettronica Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy; Bioengineering Unit, Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica, Pavia, Italy. 7. Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy; Scientific Directorate, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dosimetric assessment of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy applicators, printed in 3D with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) at different infill percentage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A low-cost, desktop, 3D printer (Hamlet 3DX100, Hamlet, Dublin, IE) was used for manufacturing simple HDR applicators, reproducing typical geometries in brachytherapy: cylindrical (common in vaginal treatment) and flat configurations (generally used to treat superficial lesions). Printer accuracy was investigated through physical measurements. The dosimetric consequences of varying the applicator's density by tuning the printing infill percentage were analysed experimentally by measuring depth dose profiles and superficial dose distribution with Gafchromic EBT3 films (International Specialty Products, Wayne, NJ). Dose distributions were compared to those obtained with a commercial superficial applicator. RESULTS: Measured printing accuracy was within 0.5mm. Dose attenuation was not sensitive to the density of the material. Surface dose distribution comparison of the 3D printed flat applicators with respect to the commercial superficial applicator showed an overall passing rate greater than 94% for gamma analysis with 3% dose difference criteria, 3mm distance-to-agreement criteria and 10% dose threshold. CONCLUSION: Low-cost 3D printers are a promising solution for the customization of the HDR brachytherapy applicators. However, further assessment of 3D printing techniques and regulatory materials approval are required for clinical application.
PURPOSE: Dosimetric assessment of high dose rate (HDR) brachytherapy applicators, printed in 3D with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) at different infill percentage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A low-cost, desktop, 3D printer (Hamlet 3DX100, Hamlet, Dublin, IE) was used for manufacturing simple HDR applicators, reproducing typical geometries in brachytherapy: cylindrical (common in vaginal treatment) and flat configurations (generally used to treat superficial lesions). Printer accuracy was investigated through physical measurements. The dosimetric consequences of varying the applicator's density by tuning the printing infill percentage were analysed experimentally by measuring depth dose profiles and superficial dose distribution with Gafchromic EBT3 films (International Specialty Products, Wayne, NJ). Dose distributions were compared to those obtained with a commercial superficial applicator. RESULTS: Measured printing accuracy was within 0.5mm. Dose attenuation was not sensitive to the density of the material. Surface dose distribution comparison of the 3D printed flat applicators with respect to the commercial superficial applicator showed an overall passing rate greater than 94% for gamma analysis with 3% dose difference criteria, 3mm distance-to-agreement criteria and 10% dose threshold. CONCLUSION: Low-cost 3D printers are a promising solution for the customization of the HDR brachytherapy applicators. However, further assessment of 3D printing techniques and regulatory materials approval are required for clinical application.
Authors: Karthik Tappa; Udayabhanu Jammalamadaka; David H Ballard; Todd Bruno; Marissa R Israel; Harika Vemula; J Mark Meacham; David K Mills; Pamela K Woodard; Jeffery A Weisman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Arpine Galstyan; Michael J Bunker; Fluvio Lobo; Robert Sims; James Inziello; Jack Stubbs; Rita Mukhtar; Tatiana Kelil Journal: 3D Print Med Date: 2021-02-09