Cargando…

Technical note: Commissioning of a low‐cost system for directly 3D printed flexible bolus

PURPOSE: To present the commissioning process of a low‐cost solution for directly 3D printed flexible patient specific bolus. METHODS: The 3D printing solution used in this study consisted of a resin stereolithography 3D printer and a flexible curing resin. To test the dimensional accuracy of the 3D...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baltz, Garrett C., Kirsner, Steven M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37962024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.14206
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To present the commissioning process of a low‐cost solution for directly 3D printed flexible patient specific bolus. METHODS: The 3D printing solution used in this study consisted of a resin stereolithography 3D printer and a flexible curing resin. To test the dimensional accuracy of the 3D printer, rectangular cuboids with varying dimensions were 3D printed and their measured dimensions were compared to the designed dimensions. Percent Depth Dose (PDD) profiles were measured by irradiating film embedded in a 3D printed phantom made of the flexible material. A CT of the phantom was acquired and used to replicate the irradiation setup in the treatment planning system. PDDs were calculated for both the native HU of the phantom, and with the phantom HU overridden to 300 HU to match its physical density. Dosimetric agreement was characterized by comparing calculated to measured depths of R90, R80, and R50. Upon completion of the commissioning process, a bolus was 3D printed for a clinical case study for treatment of the nose. RESULTS: Dimensional accuracy of the printer and material combination was found to be good, with all measured dimensions of test cuboids within 0.5 mm of designed. PDD measurements demonstrated the best dosimetric agreement when the material was overridden to 300 HU, corresponding to the measured physical density of the material of 1.18 g/cc. Calculated and measured depths of R90, R80, and R50 all agreed within 1 mm. The bolus printed for the clinical case was free from defects, highly conformal, and led to a clinically acceptable plan. CONCLUSION: The results of the commissioning measurements performed indicate that the 3D printer and material solution are suitable for clinical use. The 3D printer and material combination can provide a low‐cost solution a clinic can implement in‐house to directly 3D print flexible bolus.