Amirhossein Asfia1,2, James I Novak1, Mazher Iqbal Mohammed3, Bernard Rolfe1, Tomas Kron2,4,5. 1. School of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. 2. ARC Industrial Transformation Training Centre in Additive Bio-manufacturing, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3. Loughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom. 4. Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. School of Applied Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is one of the most effective cancer treatment techniques, however, delivering the optimal radiation dosage is challenging due to movements of the patient during treatment. Immobilisation devices are typically used to minimise motion. This paper reviews published research investigating the use of 3D printing (additive manufacturing) to produce patient-specific immobilisation devices, and compares these to traditional devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across thirty-eight databases, with results limited to those published between January 2000 and January 2019. A total of eighteen papers suitably detailed the use of 3D printing to manufacture and test immobilisers, and were included in this review. This included ten journal papers, five posters, two conference papers and one thesis. RESULTS: 61% of relevant studies featured human subjects, 22% focussed on animal subjects, 11% used phantoms, and one study utilised experimental test methods. Advantages of 3D printed immobilisers reported in literature included improved patient experience and comfort over traditional methods, as well as high levels of accuracy between immobiliser and patient, repeatable setup, and similar beam attenuation properties to thermoformed immobilisers. Disadvantages included the slow 3D printing process and the potential for inaccuracies in the digitisation of patient geometry. CONCLUSION: It was found that a lack of technical knowledge, combined with disparate studies with small patient samples, required further research in order to validate claims supporting the benefits of 3D printing to improve patient comfort or treatment accuracy.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Radiotherapy is one of the most effective cancer treatment techniques, however, delivering the optimal radiation dosage is challenging due to movements of the patient during treatment. Immobilisation devices are typically used to minimise motion. This paper reviews published research investigating the use of 3D printing (additive manufacturing) to produce patient-specific immobilisation devices, and compares these to traditional devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across thirty-eight databases, with results limited to those published between January 2000 and January 2019. A total of eighteen papers suitably detailed the use of 3D printing to manufacture and test immobilisers, and were included in this review. This included ten journal papers, five posters, two conference papers and one thesis. RESULTS: 61% of relevant studies featured human subjects, 22% focussed on animal subjects, 11% used phantoms, and one study utilised experimental test methods. Advantages of 3D printed immobilisers reported in literature included improved patient experience and comfort over traditional methods, as well as high levels of accuracy between immobiliser and patient, repeatable setup, and similar beam attenuation properties to thermoformed immobilisers. Disadvantages included the slow 3D printing process and the potential for inaccuracies in the digitisation of patient geometry. CONCLUSION: It was found that a lack of technical knowledge, combined with disparate studies with small patient samples, required further research in order to validate claims supporting the benefits of 3D printing to improve patient comfort or treatment accuracy.
Authors: Niloufar Zarghami; Michael D Jensen; Srikanth Talluri; Paula J Foster; Ann F Chambers; Frederick A Dick; Eugene Wong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Christopher T Wilke; Mohamed Zaid; Caroline Chung; Clifton D Fuller; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Heath Skinner; Jack Phan; G Brandon Gunn; William H Morrison; Adam S Garden; Steven J Frank; David I Rosenthal; Mark S Chambers; Eugene J Koay Journal: 3D Print Med Date: 2017-11-16
Authors: Heather Slater; Alice E Milne; Benjamin Wilson; Ross S Muers; Fabien Balezeau; David Hunter; Alexander Thiele; Timothy D Griffiths; Christopher I Petkov Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Susannah Cleland; Scott B Crowe; Philip Chan; Benjamin Chua; Jodi Dawes; Lizbeth Kenny; Charles Y Lin; William R McDowall; Elise Obereigner; Tania Poroa; Kate Stewart; Tanya Kairn Journal: Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol Date: 2022-06-21
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