Three‐dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature
Purpose/objectives Three‐dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are cu...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied clinical medical physics 2020-08, Vol.21 (8), p.15-26 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 26 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 15 |
| container_title | Journal of applied clinical medical physics |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Rooney, Michael K. Rosenberg, David M. Braunstein, Steve Cunha, Adam Damato, Antonio L. Ehler, Eric Pawlicki, Todd Robar, James Tatebe, Ken Golden, Daniel W. |
| description | Purpose/objectives
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.
Materials/methods
A search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.
Results
One hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1–42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/acm2.12907 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2407316879</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2407316879</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4217-28596b3b71c6c7ea142e8262e7993b69acd1832c491991f5b85f2389ee027a223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMo1tvGB5CAGxFakzOXTNyV4g0qbnThasikZzRlZlKTGUt3PoLP6JOY2iriwtU5_Hz8nPMRcsjZgDMGZ0rXMOAgmdggOzyBtC8ljzd_7T2y6_2UMc6zKNsmvQjiRLJE7pDH-2eH-PH2PjE1Nt7YRlV05kzTmuaJmoY6NTGqDTm1jbaVfVqc0yH1C99iHXJNHb4anFNb0vYZaWVadKrtHO6TrVJVHg_Wc488XF7cj67747urm9Fw3NcxcNGHLJFpERWC61QLVDwGzCAFFFJGRSqVnoSjQceSh0_KpMiSEqJMIjIQCiDaIyer3pmzLx36Nq-N11hVqkHb-RxiJiKeZkIG9PgPOrWdCx8vqSiGRAjOA3W6orSz3jss8-CjVm6Rc5YvhedL4fmX8AAfrSu7osbJD_ptOAB8BcxNhYt_qvLh6BZWpZ-I-Yo2</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2434257711</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three‐dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Rooney, Michael K. ; Rosenberg, David M. ; Braunstein, Steve ; Cunha, Adam ; Damato, Antonio L. ; Ehler, Eric ; Pawlicki, Todd ; Robar, James ; Tatebe, Ken ; Golden, Daniel W.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rooney, Michael K. ; Rosenberg, David M. ; Braunstein, Steve ; Cunha, Adam ; Damato, Antonio L. ; Ehler, Eric ; Pawlicki, Todd ; Robar, James ; Tatebe, Ken ; Golden, Daniel W.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose/objectives
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.
Materials/methods
A search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.
Results
One hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1–42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P < 0.0001). While outcomes were heterogeneous, most studies reported successful implementation of accurate and cost‐effective 3D printing methods.
Conclusions
Three‐dimensional printing is rapidly growing in radiation oncology and has been implemented effectively in a diverse array of applications. Although the number of 3D printing publications has steadily risen, the majority of current reports are preclinical in nature and the few clinical studies that do exist report on small sample sizes. Further dissemination of ongoing investigations describing the clinical application of developed 3D printing technologies in larger cohorts is warranted.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-9914</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/acm2.12907</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32459059</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>3-D printers ; 3D printing ; Additive manufacturing ; clinical application ; Data collection ; Dosimetry ; Feasibility studies ; Health physics ; Intervention ; Medical equipment ; Oncology ; Patients ; Physics ; Population ; Quality control ; radiation oncology ; Radiation therapy ; Subject heading schemes ; Systematic review ; Trends ; Tumors</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020-08, Vol.21 (8), p.15-26</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2020 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Association of Physicists in Medicine.</rights><rights>2020. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4217-28596b3b71c6c7ea142e8262e7993b69acd1832c491991f5b85f2389ee027a223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4217-28596b3b71c6c7ea142e8262e7993b69acd1832c491991f5b85f2389ee027a223</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Facm2.12907$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Facm2.12907$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,1411,11541,27901,27902,45550,45551,46027,46451</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32459059$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rooney, Michael K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braunstein, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cunha, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Damato, Antonio L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehler, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pawlicki, Todd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robar, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tatebe, Ken</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Daniel W.</creatorcontrib><title>Three‐dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature</title><title>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</title><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><description>Purpose/objectives
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.
Materials/methods
A search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.
Results
One hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1–42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P < 0.0001). While outcomes were heterogeneous, most studies reported successful implementation of accurate and cost‐effective 3D printing methods.
Conclusions
Three‐dimensional printing is rapidly growing in radiation oncology and has been implemented effectively in a diverse array of applications. Although the number of 3D printing publications has steadily risen, the majority of current reports are preclinical in nature and the few clinical studies that do exist report on small sample sizes. Further dissemination of ongoing investigations describing the clinical application of developed 3D printing technologies in larger cohorts is warranted.</description><subject>3-D printers</subject><subject>3D printing</subject><subject>Additive manufacturing</subject><subject>clinical application</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Dosimetry</subject><subject>Feasibility studies</subject><subject>Health physics</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Population</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>radiation oncology</subject><subject>Radiation therapy</subject><subject>Subject heading schemes</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Trends</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><issn>1526-9914</issn><issn>1526-9914</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMo1tvGB5CAGxFakzOXTNyV4g0qbnThasikZzRlZlKTGUt3PoLP6JOY2iriwtU5_Hz8nPMRcsjZgDMGZ0rXMOAgmdggOzyBtC8ljzd_7T2y6_2UMc6zKNsmvQjiRLJE7pDH-2eH-PH2PjE1Nt7YRlV05kzTmuaJmoY6NTGqDTm1jbaVfVqc0yH1C99iHXJNHb4anFNb0vYZaWVadKrtHO6TrVJVHg_Wc488XF7cj67747urm9Fw3NcxcNGHLJFpERWC61QLVDwGzCAFFFJGRSqVnoSjQceSh0_KpMiSEqJMIjIQCiDaIyer3pmzLx36Nq-N11hVqkHb-RxiJiKeZkIG9PgPOrWdCx8vqSiGRAjOA3W6orSz3jss8-CjVm6Rc5YvhedL4fmX8AAfrSu7osbJD_ptOAB8BcxNhYt_qvLh6BZWpZ-I-Yo2</recordid><startdate>202008</startdate><enddate>202008</enddate><creator>Rooney, Michael K.</creator><creator>Rosenberg, David M.</creator><creator>Braunstein, Steve</creator><creator>Cunha, Adam</creator><creator>Damato, Antonio L.</creator><creator>Ehler, Eric</creator><creator>Pawlicki, Todd</creator><creator>Robar, James</creator><creator>Tatebe, Ken</creator><creator>Golden, Daniel W.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202008</creationdate><title>Three‐dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature</title><author>Rooney, Michael K. ; Rosenberg, David M. ; Braunstein, Steve ; Cunha, Adam ; Damato, Antonio L. ; Ehler, Eric ; Pawlicki, Todd ; Robar, James ; Tatebe, Ken ; Golden, Daniel W.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4217-28596b3b71c6c7ea142e8262e7993b69acd1832c491991f5b85f2389ee027a223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>3-D printers</topic><topic>3D printing</topic><topic>Additive manufacturing</topic><topic>clinical application</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Dosimetry</topic><topic>Feasibility studies</topic><topic>Health physics</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Population</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>radiation oncology</topic><topic>Radiation therapy</topic><topic>Subject heading schemes</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Trends</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rooney, Michael K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Braunstein, Steve</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cunha, Adam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Damato, Antonio L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ehler, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pawlicki, Todd</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robar, James</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tatebe, Ken</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Golden, Daniel W.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rooney, Michael K.</au><au>Rosenberg, David M.</au><au>Braunstein, Steve</au><au>Cunha, Adam</au><au>Damato, Antonio L.</au><au>Ehler, Eric</au><au>Pawlicki, Todd</au><au>Robar, James</au><au>Tatebe, Ken</au><au>Golden, Daniel W.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three‐dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied clinical medical physics</jtitle><addtitle>J Appl Clin Med Phys</addtitle><date>2020-08</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>15</spage><epage>26</epage><pages>15-26</pages><issn>1526-9914</issn><eissn>1526-9914</eissn><abstract>Purpose/objectives
Three‐dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.
Materials/methods
A search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.
Results
One hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1–42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P < 0.0001). While outcomes were heterogeneous, most studies reported successful implementation of accurate and cost‐effective 3D printing methods.
Conclusions
Three‐dimensional printing is rapidly growing in radiation oncology and has been implemented effectively in a diverse array of applications. Although the number of 3D printing publications has steadily risen, the majority of current reports are preclinical in nature and the few clinical studies that do exist report on small sample sizes. Further dissemination of ongoing investigations describing the clinical application of developed 3D printing technologies in larger cohorts is warranted.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>32459059</pmid><doi>10.1002/acm2.12907</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1526-9914 |
| ispartof | Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020-08, Vol.21 (8), p.15-26 |
| issn | 1526-9914 1526-9914 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2407316879 |
| source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals; Wiley Online Library Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | 3-D printers 3D printing Additive manufacturing clinical application Data collection Dosimetry Feasibility studies Health physics Intervention Medical equipment Oncology Patients Physics Population Quality control radiation oncology Radiation therapy Subject heading schemes Systematic review Trends Tumors |
| title | Three‐dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T17%3A18%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Three%E2%80%90dimensional%20printing%20in%20radiation%20oncology:%20A%20systematic%20review%20of%20the%20literature&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20clinical%20medical%20physics&rft.au=Rooney,%20Michael%20K.&rft.date=2020-08&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=15&rft.epage=26&rft.pages=15-26&rft.issn=1526-9914&rft.eissn=1526-9914&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/acm2.12907&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2407316879%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2434257711&rft_id=info:pmid/32459059&rfr_iscdi=true |