Quality Assurance Tests for 3D Printed Bolus Used in Radiation Therapy

A quick guide on implementing and quality assuring 3D printing in radiation oncology

As three-dimensional (3D) printing becomes increasingly common in radiation oncology, proper implementation, usage, and ongoing quality assurance (QA) are essential. While there have been many reports on various clinical investigations and several review articles, there is a lack of literature on the general considerations of implementing 3D printing in radiation oncology departments, including comprehensive process establishment and proper ongoing QA. This review aims to guide radiation oncology departments in effectively using 3D printing technology for routine clinical applications and future developments. We attempt to provide recommendations on 3D printing equipment, software, workflow, and QA, based on existing literature and our experience. Specifically, we focus on three main applications: patient-specific bolus, high-dose-rate (HDR) surface brachytherapy applicators, and phantoms. Additionally, cost considerations are briefly discussed. This review focuses on point-of-care (POC) printing in house, and briefly touches on outsourcing printing via mail-order services.

Determining tolerance levels for quality assurance of 3D printed bolus for modulated arc radiotherapy of the nose

Given the existing literature on the subject, there is obviously a need for specific advice on quality assurance (QA) tolerances for departments using or implementing 3D printed bolus for radiotherapy treatments. With a view to providing initial suggested QA tolerances for 3D printed bolus, this study evaluated the dosimetric effects of changes in bolus geometry and density, for a particularly common and challenging clinical situation: specifically, volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) treatment of the nose. Film-based dose verification measurements demonstrated that both the AAA and the AXB algorithms used by the Varian Eclipse treatment planning system (Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, USA) were capable of providing sufficiently accurate dose calculations to allow this planning system to be used to evaluate the effects of bolus errors on dose distributions from VMAT treatments of the nose. Thereafter, the AAA and AXB algorithms were used to calculate the dosimetric effects of applying a range of simulated errors to the design of a virtual bolus, to identify QA tolerances that could be used to avoid clinically significant effects from common printing errors. Results were generally consistent, whether the treatment target was superficial and treated with counter-rotating coplanar arcs or more-penetrating and treated with noncoplanar arcs, and whether the dose was calculated using the AAA algorithm or the AXB algorithm. The results of this study suggest the following QA tolerances are advisable, when 3D printed bolus is fabricated for use in photon VMAT treatments of the nose: bolus relative electron density variation within [Formula: see text] (although an action level at [Formula: see text] may be permissible); bolus thickness variation within [Formula: see text] mm (or 0.5 mm variation on opposite sides); and air gap between bolus and skin [Formula: see text] mm. These tolerances should be investigated for validity with respect to other treatment modalities and anatomical sites. This study provides a set of baselines for future comparisons and a useful method for identifying additional or alternative 3D printed bolus QA tolerances.