Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40242418›Full record

ReviewReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology2025

Application of 3D printing for personalized boluses in radiotherapy: a systematic review.

Aleksandra Bochyńska, Anna Zawadzka, Paweł Kukołowicz, Mateusz Jacek Spałek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Custom-made, 3D-printed bolus cap for a case of scalp metastasis: A single-institution study.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Aleksandra BochyńskaMedical Physics Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Anna ZawadzkaMedical Physics Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Paweł KukołowiczMedical Physics Department, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Mateusz Jacek SpałekDepartment of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Skłodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate the current literature covering the topic of 3D-printed radiotherapy boluses in the context of fabrication methods, materials, and clinical outcomes. This systematic review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Data were extracted for authors, publication details, application type, printing technique and materials, study type, radiation type, reported outcomes and implementation difficulties. The search yielded 161 articles, 52 of which met the inclusion criteria. Publications on 3D printing for customized boluses have increased since 2014, with the most articles from the United States (21%). Most studies (80.8%) focused on manufacturing custom boluses and testing 3D printing materials, whereas 19.2% explored creating molds for boluses. CT scans were the primary method for defining the bolus area (88.6%). The publications included three study types: dosimetric evaluations, evaluations with anthropomorphic phantoms, and clinical case studies. Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) was the most common printing technique (88.1%), with Polylactic Acid (PLA) being the most frequently used material (57.1%). Challenges included ensuring proper fit, assessing material properties, and managing printing time. The outcomes of this review suggest that 3D printing technology holds significant promise for improving radiotherapy by creating custom-fit boluses. 3D-printed boluses demonstrated notable advantages, such as improved dose distribution, better bolus conformity, and reduced setup times. However, several limitations have been identified, including considerable variability in study designs, making it challenging to draw generalized conclusions. Some studies had small sample sizes or did not clearly report methodological details. Addressing these issues will help to optimize technology's implementation.

Indexed as

3D-printed bolus3D printingradiotherapythree-dimensional printing

Identifiers

PMID40242418
PMCPMC11999008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.