Rosalinda Ricotti1, Delia Ciardo2, Floriana Pansini3, Alessia Bazani3, Stefania Comi3, Ruggero Spoto4, Samuele Noris5, Federica Cattani3, Guido Baroni6, Roberto Orecchia7, Andrea Vavassori1, Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: delia.ciardo@ieo.it. 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. Corso di Laurea in 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; Department of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 3D printing is rapidly evolving and further assessment of materials and technique is required for clinical applications. We evaluated 3D printed boluses with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactide (PLA) at different infill percentage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A low-cost 3D printer was used. The influence of the air inclusion within the 3D printed boluses was assessed thoroughly both with treatment planning system (TPS) and with physical measurements. For each bolus, two treatment plans were calculated with Monte Carlo algorithm, considering the computed tomography (CT) scan of the 3D printed bolus or modelling the 3D printed bolus as a virtual bolus structure with a homogeneous density. Depth dose measurements were performed with Gafchromic films. RESULTS: High infill percentage corresponds to high density and high homogeneity within bolus material. The approximation of the bolus in the TPS as a homogeneous material is satisfying for infill percentages greater than 20%. Measurements performed with PLA boluses are more comparable to the TPS calculated profiles. For boluses printed at 40% and 60% infill, the discrepancies between calculated and measured dose distribution are within 5%. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing technology allows modulating the shift of the build-up region by tuning the infill percentage of the 3D printed bolus in order to improve superficial target coverage.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 3D printing is rapidly evolving and further assessment of materials and technique is required for clinical applications. We evaluated 3D printed boluses with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactide (PLA) at different infill percentage. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A low-cost 3D printer was used. The influence of the air inclusion within the 3D printed boluses was assessed thoroughly both with treatment planning system (TPS) and with physical measurements. For each bolus, two treatment plans were calculated with Monte Carlo algorithm, considering the computed tomography (CT) scan of the 3D printed bolus or modelling the 3D printed bolus as a virtual bolus structure with a homogeneous density. Depth dose measurements were performed with Gafchromic films. RESULTS: High infill percentage corresponds to high density and high homogeneity within bolus material. The approximation of the bolus in the TPS as a homogeneous material is satisfying for infill percentages greater than 20%. Measurements performed with PLA boluses are more comparable to the TPS calculated profiles. For boluses printed at 40% and 60% infill, the discrepancies between calculated and measured dose distribution are within 5%. CONCLUSIONS: 3D printing technology allows modulating the shift of the build-up region by tuning the infill percentage of the 3D printed bolus in order to improve superficial target coverage.
Authors: Michael K Rooney; David M Rosenberg; Steve Braunstein; Adam Cunha; Antonio L Damato; Eric Ehler; Todd Pawlicki; James Robar; Ken Tatebe; Daniel W Golden Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-05-27 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Amirhossein Asfia; Basaula Deepak; James Ivan Novak; Bernard Rolfe; Tomas Kron Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Hong Qi Tan; Calvin Wei Yang Koh; Lloyd Kuan Rui Tan; Kah Seng Lew; Clifford Ghee Ann Chua; Khong Wei Ang; James Cheow Lei Lee; Sung Yong Park Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 2.243