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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Amirhossein Asfia, James I. Novak, Mazher Iqbal Mohammed, Bernard Rolfe, Tomas Kron
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