Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39298691›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2024

3D printing of realistic body phantoms: Comparison of measured and simulated organ doses on the example of a CT scan on a pregnant woman.

Patrizia Kunert, Helmut Schlattl, Sebastian Trinkl, Edilaine Honorio da Silva, Detlef Reichert, Augusto Giussani

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Patrizia KunertDepartment of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Helmut SchlattlDepartment of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Sebastian TrinklDepartment of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Edilaine Honorio da SilvaDepartment of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Detlef ReichertDepartment of Physics, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Augusto GiussaniDepartment of Medical and Occupational Radiation Protection, Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical examinations or treatment of pregnant women using ionizing radiation are sometimes unavoidable. In such cases, the risk of harm to the embryo and fetus after exposure to ionizing radiation must be carefully estimated. However, no commercially available anthropomorphic body phantoms of pregnant women are available for dose measurements. A promising possibility for the production of body phantoms for patient groups that are not adequately represented by the phantoms of reference persons is 3D printing. However, this approach is still in the evaluation phase. PURPOSE: To print the abdomen of a woman in the late stage of pregnancy and compare the dose distribution measured using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) in the printed phantom for two different computed tomography (CT) protocols with the corresponding results of Monte Carlo simulations on voxel models of the pregnant woman. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe physical phantom was produced through multi-material extrusion printing using different print materials identified in previous studies to simulate homogeneous soft tissues and the mean compositions of maternal and fetal bones. The 3D printed abdomen was combined with a conventionally produced anthropomorphic female phantom to obtain a whole-body phantom of a pregnant woman. Dose values resulting from two different CT scans acquired at tube voltages of 80 and 120 kV were measured using TLDs positioned in the physical phantom and cross-validated with the results of Monte Carlo simulations performed for two different voxel models. The first was a voxelized model of the produced phantom itself and the second a realistic digital model of a pregnant woman. Representative CT values of the materials used in the printed phantom were determined from the acquired CT images.

resultsThe CT values of maternal and fetal tissue structures in the phantom are comparable to CT values of real human tissues. The difference between most organ doses measured in the 3D printed phantom and simulated in the voxel models was below 20% and equivalent within the measurement uncertainties. Only the dose to the fetal head was up to 50% higher and not equivalent for the realistic model and the 80 kV-protocol. As expected, the agreement was better for the voxelized than for the realistic model. For both models a slight energy dependence was observed, with larger deviations for the 80-kV protocol especially for organs located in the pelvic region.

conclusionIndividualized physical body phantoms, such as that of a pregnant woman, can be produced using 3D printing. The good agreement between measured and simulated doses to the fetus cross-validates both dosimetric methods. Therefore, this study demonstrates the suitability of 3D printing phantoms for patients not adequately represented by commercially available body phantoms of reference persons.

Indexed as

Monte Carlo MethodPhantoms, ImagingPrinting, Three-DimensionalRadiation DosageTomography, X-Ray ComputedFemaleHumansPregnancy3D printinganthropomorphic phantomspregnancyradiation protection

Identifiers

PMID39298691
PMCPMC11656280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.