A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy
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...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Elsevier
2020-01-01
|
Series: | Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology |
Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631620300063 |
id |
doaj-7e08f4d4b83a4b918ae0ec8adcbe4890 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-7e08f4d4b83a4b918ae0ec8adcbe48902020-11-25T01:48:01ZengElsevierPhysics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology2405-63162020-01-01133035A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapyAmirhossein Asfia0James I. Novak1Mazher Iqbal Mohammed2Bernard Rolfe3Tomas Kron4School of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia; ARC Industrial Transformation Training Centre in Additive Bio-manufacturing, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Corresponding author at: School of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.School of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, AustraliaLoughborough Design School, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United KingdomSchool of Engineering, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, AustraliaARC Industrial Transformation Training Centre in Additive Bio-manufacturing, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; School of Applied Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaBackground 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. Keywords: 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Customisation, Head and neck cancer, Health technology, Systematic reviewhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631620300063 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Amirhossein Asfia James I. Novak Mazher Iqbal Mohammed Bernard Rolfe Tomas Kron |
spellingShingle |
Amirhossein Asfia James I. Novak Mazher Iqbal Mohammed Bernard Rolfe Tomas Kron A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology |
author_facet |
Amirhossein Asfia James I. Novak Mazher Iqbal Mohammed Bernard Rolfe Tomas Kron |
author_sort |
Amirhossein Asfia |
title |
A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy |
title_short |
A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy |
title_full |
A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy |
title_fullStr |
A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy |
title_full_unstemmed |
A review of 3D printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy |
title_sort |
review of 3d printed patient specific immobilisation devices in radiotherapy |
publisher |
Elsevier |
series |
Physics and Imaging in Radiation Oncology |
issn |
2405-6316 |
publishDate |
2020-01-01 |
description |
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. Keywords: 3D printing, Additive manufacturing, Customisation, Head and neck cancer, Health technology, Systematic review |
url |
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405631620300063 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT amirhosseinasfia areviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT jamesinovak areviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT mazheriqbalmohammed areviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT bernardrolfe areviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT tomaskron areviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT amirhosseinasfia reviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT jamesinovak reviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT mazheriqbalmohammed reviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT bernardrolfe reviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy AT tomaskron reviewof3dprintedpatientspecificimmobilisationdevicesinradiotherapy |
_version_ |
1725013416458846208 |