Faculty, Staff and Student Publications

Publication Date

9-1-2024

Journal

International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics

DOI

10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.03.017

PMID

38493902

PMCID

PMC12359262

PubMedCentral® Posted Date

8-19-2025

PubMedCentral® Full Text Version

Author MSS

Abstract

Purpose: We conducted a multi-institutional dosimetric audit between FLASH and conventional dose rate (CONV) electron irradiations by using an anatomically realistic 3-dimensional (3D) printed mouse phantom.

Methods and materials: A computed tomography (CT) scan of a live mouse was used to create a 3D model of bony anatomy, lungs, and soft tissue. A dual-nozzle 3D printer was used to print the mouse phantom using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (∼1.02 g/cm3) and polylactic acid (∼1.24 g/cm3) simultaneously to simulate soft tissue and bone densities, respectively. The lungs were printed separately using lightweight polylactic acid (∼0.64 g/cm3). Hounsfield units (HU), densities, and print-to-print stability of the phantoms were assessed. Three institutions were each provided a phantom and each institution performed 2 replicates of irradiations at selected anatomic regions. The average dose difference between FLASH and CONV dose distributions and deviation from the prescribed dose were measured with radiochromic film.

Results: Compared with the reference CT scan, CT scans of the phantom demonstrated mass density differences of 0.10 g/cm3 for bone, 0.12 g/cm3 for lung, and 0.03 g/cm3 for soft tissue regions. Differences in HU between phantoms were < 10 HU for soft tissue and bone, with lung showing the most variation (54 HU), but with minimal effect on dose distribution (< 0.5%). Mean differences between FLASH and CONV decreased from the first to the second replicate (4.3%-1.2%), and differences from the prescribed dose decreased for both CONV (3.6%-2.5%) and FLASH (6.4%-2.7%). Total dose accuracy suggests consistent pulse dose and pulse number, although these were not specifically assessed. Positioning variability was observed, likely due to the absence of robust positioning aids or image guidance.

Conclusions: This study marks the first dosimetric audit for FLASH using a nonhomogeneous phantom, challenging conventional calibration practices reliant on homogeneous phantoms. The comparison protocol offers a framework for credentialing multi-institutional studies in FLASH preclinical research to enhance reproducibility of biologic findings.

Keywords

Phantoms, Imaging, Printing, Three-Dimensional, Animals, Mice, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Lung, Radiometry, Radiotherapy Dosage, Polyesters, Electrons, Bone and Bones, Polystyrenes, Acrylic Resins, Butadienes

Published Open-Access

yes

Download

Share

COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.