研究目的
To compare the dose differences between two kinds of materials (silica gel and hydrogel) used to prepare boluses based on three‐dimensional (3D) printing technologies and commercial bolus in head phantoms simulating nose, ear, and parotid gland radiotherapy.
研究成果
Silica gel and hydrogel boluses were not only good for fit and a high level of comfort and repeatability, but also had better parameters in IMRT plans. They could replace the commercial bolus for clinical use.
研究不足
The study is limited to head phantoms simulating nose, ear, and parotid gland radiotherapy. The physical characteristics and clinical feasibility of silica gel and hydrogel boluses were compared, but long-term clinical outcomes and patient comfort were not assessed.
1:Experimental Design and Method Selection:
Used 3D printing technology to make silica gel and hydrogel boluses. IMRT plans were created for head phantoms that were bolus‐free or had a commercial bolus, a silica gel bolus, or a hydrogel bolus.
2:Sample Selection and Data Sources:
Head phantoms simulating nose, ear, and parotid gland radiotherapy.
3:List of Experimental Equipment and Materials:
3D printer (MakerBot Replicator II), silica gel, hydrogel, commercial bolus (Bolx‐I).
4:Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow:
Fabrication of boluses using 3D printing, CT scanning, treatment planning system (Pinnacle version
5:8), IMRT plan creation and optimization. Data Analysis Methods:
Comparison of dosimetry differences (HI, CI, V95%) between different boluses.
独家科研数据包,助您复现前沿成果,加速创新突破
获取完整内容