Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:18:35.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2020

Michael J. Moore ,
Ronald Snelgrove ,
Johnson Darko  and
Ernest K. Osei Open the ORCID record for Ernest K. Osei [Opens in a new window]
Michael J. Moore
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 1G3
Ronald Snelgrove
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 1G3
Johnson Darko
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 1G3 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1
Ernest K. Osei*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, 835 King Street West, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, N2G 1G3 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1 Department of Clinical Studies, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1 Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3G1
*
Author for correspondence: Ernest K. Osei, Department of Medical Physics, Grand River Regional Cancer Centre, Kitchener, ON, Canada. Tel: (519) 749-4300. E-mail: ernest.osei@grhosp.on.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Keywords

ABSelectron apertureelectron blockelectron cutoutradiation therapy
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 222 - 227
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Goede, MR, Gooden, DS, Ellis, RG, Brickner, TJ. A versatile electron collimation system to be used with electron cones supplied with Varian’s Clinac 18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1977; 2: 791–795. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(77)90065-7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogstrom, KR, Almond, PR. Review of electron beam therapy physics. Phys Med Biol 2006; 51 (13): R455–R489. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/13/R25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kijima, K, Monzen, H, Matsumoto, K, Tamura, M, Nishimura, Y. The shielding ability of novel tungsten rubber against the electron beam for clinical use in radiation therapy. Anticancer Res 2018; 38: 3919–3927. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.12677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, CM, Pawlicki, T, Lee, MC et al. Energy- and intensity-modulated electron beams for radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2000; 45: 2293–2311. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldib, AA, ElGohary, MI, Fan, J et al. Dosimetric characteristics of an electron multileaf collimator for modulated electron radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (2): 5–22. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i2.2913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, S, Fix, MK, Henzen, D et al. Electron beam collimation with a photon MLC for standard electron treatments. Phys Med Biol 2018; 63. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/aa9fb6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ma, C, Parsons, D, Chen, M, et al. Electron modulated arc therapy (EMAT) using photon MLC for postmastectomy chest wall treatment I: Monte Carlo-based dosimetric characterizations. Phys Med 2019; 67: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.10.018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skinner, L, Fahimian, BP, Yu, AS. Tungsten filled 3D printed field shaping devices for electron beam radiation therapy. PLoS One 2019; 14 (6): 1–11. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sekii, S, Tsujino, K, Kosaka, K et al. Inversely designed, 3D-printed personalized template-guided interstitial brachytherapy for vaginal tumors. J Contemp Brachytherapy 2018; 10 (5): 470–477. doi: 10.5114/jcb.2018.78832.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ricotti, R, Vavassori, A, Bazani, A et al. 3D-printed applicators for high dose rate brachytherapy: dosimetric assessment at different infill percentage. Phys Med 2016; 32 (12): 1698–1706. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2016.08.016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunha, JAM, Mellis, K, Sethi, R et al. Evaluation of PC-ISO for customized, 3D printed, gynecologic 192Ir HDR brachytherapy applicators. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2015; 16 (1): 246–253. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v16i1.5168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tino, R, Yeo, A, Leary, M, Brandt, M, Kron, T. A Systematic Review on 3D-Printed Imaging and Dosimetry Phantoms in Radiation Therapy. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2019; 18: 1–14. doi: 10.1177/1533033819870208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kamomae, T, Shimizu, H, Nakaya, T et al. Three-dimensional printer-generated patient-specific phantom for artificial in vivo dosimetry in radiotherapy quality assurance. Phys Med 2017; 44: 205–211. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2017.10.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, R, Sharma, SD, Despande, S et al. Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic-based low-cost tissue equivalent phantom for verification dosimetry in IMRT. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (1): 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michiels, S, Mangelschots, B, Roover, R De, Devroye, C, Depuydt, T. Production of patient-specific electron beam aperture cut-outs using a low-cost, multi-purpose 3D printer. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2018; 19 (5): 756–760. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craft, DF, Balter, P, Woodward, W et al. Design, fabrication, and validation of patient-specific electron tissue compensators for postmastectomy radiation therapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018; 8: 38–43. doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2018.11.005.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canters, RA, Lips, IM, Wendling, M et al. Clinical implementation of 3D printing in the construction of patient specific bolus for electron beam radiotherapy for non-melanoma skin cancer. Radiother Oncol 2016; 121 (1): 148–153. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2016.07.011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Su, S, Moran, K, Robar, JL. Design and production of 3D printed bolus for electron radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2014; 15 (4): 194–211. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v15i4.4831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filippou, V, Tsoumpas, C. Recent advances on the development of phantoms using 3D printing for imaging with CT, MRI, PET, SPECT, and ultrasound. Med Phys 2018; 45 (9): e740–e760. doi: 10.1002/mp.13058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madamesila, J, McGeachy, P, Villarreal Barajas, JE, Khan, R. Characterizing 3D printing in the fabrication of variable density phantoms for quality assurance of radiotherapy. Phys Med 2016; 32: 242–247. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2015.09.013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kairn, T, Crowe, SB, Markwell, T. Use of 3D Printed Materials as Tissue-Equivalent Phantoms. In: Jaffray, D, ed. World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering. IFMBE Proceedings. Vol 51. Cham: Springer, 2015: 3–7. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19387-8_179.Google Scholar
Blackwell, CR, Amundson, KD. Cadmium free lead alloy for reusable radiotherapy shielding. Med Dosim 1990; 15: 127–129. doi: 10.1016/0958-3947(90)90050-R.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogstrom, KR, Carver, RL, Chambers, EL, Erhart, K. Introduction to passive electron intensity modulation. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017; 18 (6): 10–19. doi: 10.1002/acm2.12163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamura, M, Monzen, H, Kubo, K, Hirata, M, Nishimura, Y. Feasibility of tungsten functional paper in electron grid therapy: A Monte Carlo study. Phys Med Biol 2017; 62 (3): 878–889. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/62/3/878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meigooni, AS, Parker, SA, Zheng, J, Kalbaugh, KJ, Regine, WF, Mohiuddin, M. Dosimetric characteristics with spatial fractionation using electron grid therapy. Med Dosim 2002; 27 (1): 37–42. doi: 10.1016/S0958-3947(02)00086-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buckey, C, Stathakis, S, Cashon, K et al. Evaluation of a commercially-available block for spatially fractionated radiation therapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2010; 11 (3): 2–11. doi: 10.1120/jacmp.v11i3.3163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed