Production of patient-specific electron beam aperture cut-outs using a low-cost, multi-purpose 3D printer

Innovative 3D printing and molding process for secondary-skin-collimator fabrication

Purpose. Secondary skin collimation (SSC) is essential for shielding normal tissues near tumors during electron and orthovoltage radiation treatments. Traditional SSC fabrication methods, such as crafting in-house lead sheets, are labor-intensive and produce SSCs with low geometric accuracy. This study introduces a workflow that integrated 3D scanning and 3D printing technologies with an in-house mold process, enabling the production of patient-specific SSCs within six hours.Methods. An anthropomorphic head phantom was scanned with a handheld 3D scanner. The resulting scan data was imported into 3D modeling software for design. The completed model was exported to a 3D printer as a printable file. Subsequently, molten Cerrobend was poured into the mold and allowed to set, completing the SSC production. Geometric accuracy was assessed using CT images, and the shielding effectiveness was evaluated through film dosimetry.Results. The 3D printed mold achieved submillimeter accuracy (0.5 mm) and exhibited high conformity to the phantom surface. It successfully endured the weight and heat of the Cerrobend during pouring and curing. Dosimetric analysis conducted with radiochromic film demonstrated good agreement between the measured and expected attenuation values of the SSC slab, within ±3%.Conclusions. This study presents a proof of concept for novel mold room workflows that produce patient-specific SSCs within six hours, a significant improvement over the traditional SSC fabrication process, which takes 2-3 days. The submillimeter accuracy and versatility of 3D scanning and printing technologies afford greater design freedom and enhanced delivery accuracy for cases involving irregular geometries.

Shaping success: clinical implementation of a 3D-printed electron cutout program in external beam radiation therapy

Purpose

The integration of 3D-printing technology into radiation therapy (RT) has allowed for a novel method to develop personalized electron field-shaping blocks with improved accuracy. By obviating the need for handling highly toxic Cerrobend molds, the clinical workflow is significantly streamlined. This study aims to expound upon the clinical workflow of 3D-printed electron cutouts in RT and furnish one year of in-vivo dosimetry data.

Methods and materials

3D-printed electron cutouts for 6x6 cm, 10x10 cm, and 15x15 cm electron applicators were designed and implemented into the clinical workflow after dosimetric commissioning to ensure congruence with the Cerrobend cutouts. The clinical workflow consisted of four parts: i) the cutout aperture was extracted from the treatment planning system (TPS). A 3D printable cutout was then generated automatically through custom scripts; ii) the cutout was 3D-printed with PLA filament, filled with tungsten ball bearings, and underwent quality assurance (QA) to verify density and dosimetry; iii) in-vivo dosimetry was performed with optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) for a patient's first treatment and compared to the calculated dose in the TPS; iv) after treatment completion, the 3D-printed cutout was recycled.

Results

QA and in-vivo OSLD measurements were conducted (n=40). The electron cutouts produced were 6x6 cm (n=3), 10x10 cm (n=30), and 15x15 cm (n=7). The expected weight of the cutouts differed from the measured weight by 0.4 + 1.1%. The skin dose measured with the OSLDs was compared to the skin dose in the TPS on the central axis. The difference between the measured and TPS doses was 4.0 + 5.2%.

Conclusion

The successful clinical implementation of 3D-printed cutouts reduced labor, costs, and removed the use of toxic materials in the workplace while meeting clinical dosimetric standards.

Three-dimensional printers applied for the production of beam blocks in total body irradiation treatment

Purpose

Total body irradiation (TBI) in extended source surface distance (SSD) is a common treatment technique before hematopoietic stem cell transplant. The lungs are organs at risk, which often are treated with a lower dose than the whole body.

Methods

This can be achieved by the application of blocks. Three‐dimensional (3D) printers are a modern tool to be used in the production process of these blocks.

Results

We demonstrate the applicability of a specific printer and printing material, describe the process, and evaluate the accuracy of the product.

Conclusion

The blocks and apertures were found to be applicable in clinical routine.

One layer at a time: the use of 3D printing in the fabrication of cadmium-free electron field shaping devices

Introduction:

Electron blocks are typically composed of a low melting point alloy (LMPA), which is poured into an insert frame containing a manually placed Styrofoam aperture negative used to define the desired field shape. Current implementations of the block fabrication process involve numerous steps which are subjective and prone to user error. Occasionally, bowing of the sides of the insert frame is observed, resulting in premature frame decommissioning. Recent works have investigated the feasibility of utilising 3D printing technology to replace the conventional electron block fabrication workflow; however, these approaches involved long print times, were not compatible with commonly used cadmium-free LMPAs, and did not address the problem of insert frame bowing. In this work, we sought to develop a new 3D printing technique that would remedy these issues.

Materials and Methods:

Electron cutout negatives and alignment jigs were printed using Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene, which does not warp at the high temperatures associated with molten cadmium-free alloys. The accuracy of the field shape produced by electron blocks fabricated using the 3D printed negatives was assessed using Gafchromic film and beam profiler measurements. As a proof-of-concept, electron blocks with off-axis apertures, as well as complex multi-aperture blocks to be used for passive electron beam intensity modulation, were also created.

Results:

Film and profiler measurements of field size were in excellent agreement with the values calculated using the Eclipse treatment planning system, showing less than a 1% difference in line profile full-width at half-maximum. The multi-aperture electron blocks produced fields with intensity modulation ≤3.2% of the theoretically predicted value. Use of the 3D printed alignment jig – which has contours designed to match those of the insert frame – was found to reduce the amount of frame bowing by factors of 1.8 and 2.1 in the lateral and superior–inferior directions, respectively.

Conclusions:

The 3D printed ABS negatives generated with our technique maintain their spatial accuracy even at the higher temperatures associated with cadmium-free LMPA. The negatives typically take between 1 and 2 hours to print and have a material cost of approximately $2 per patient.