Journal of Cancer Research and Pharmacology

Journal of Cancer Research and Pharmacology

Development of a Cost-Effective Head and Neck Anthropomorphic Phantom for Use in Radiation Dosimetry Studies

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Applied Design Division, Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran
3 Clinical Research Development Unit, Hajar Hospital, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
Abstract
Background and Aims: Anthropomorphic phantoms are essential for accurate radiation dosimetry but are often prohibitively expensive, limiting their use in resource-constrained settings. Our aim was to manufacture a low-cost head and neck anthropomorphic phantom using commercially accessible materials for use in radiation dosimetry studies.
Methods: This phantom was generated from 1 mm slice thickness CT scan images of an adult female, utilizing 3D Slicer and Autodesk Inventor software. In accordance with ICRU-44 report, two tissue-equivalent materials for soft tissue and bone tissue are plexiglass (polymethyl methacrylate) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), respectively. The physical and radiological characteristics of different types of plexiglass and PTFE were evaluated, and the most suitable materials were selected. Then, the 5mm-thick plates of plexiglass and PTFE were laser-cut and arranged according to the specifications. Moreover, thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD) holes (3 mm in diameter and 5 mm in depth) were incorporated within each layer in a 3 cm × 3 cm grid for dose measurements. Finally, these plates were placed on top of each other and secured using two rods.
Results: The evaluated properties of selected soft tissue and bone tissue-equivalent materials were closely aligned with the reference values. It was found that the cost of the manufactured female phantom was about 8 times lower than commercially available phantoms.
Conclusion: In this study, we successfully manufactured an anthropomorphic phantom using commercially available materials with low expenses. Its dosimetric performance will be validated in future studies. It can facilitate more dosimetric research and quality control of radiation equipment in various radiology/radiotherapy centers.
Keywords

  1. Zankl M, Veit R, Williams G, Schneider K, Fendel H, Petoussi N, et al. The construction of computer tomographic phantoms and their application in radiology and radiation protection. Radiat Environ Biophys. 1988;27(2):153-64. doi:10.1007/s004110100094 doi:10.1007/BF01214605 PMid:3393623
  2. Attix FH. Introduction to radiological physics and radiation dosimetry. Weinheim: John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
  3. Broerse J, Zoetelief J. Dose inhomogeneities for photons and neutrons near interfaces. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004; 112(4):509-17. doi:10.1093/rpd/nch092 PMid:15623886
  4. Yadav N, Singh M, Mishra S. Tissue-equivalent materials used to develop phantoms in radiation dosimetry: A review. Mater Today Proc. 2021;47:7170-3. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2021.06.359
  5. Matsuo Y, Shibuya K, Nakamura M, Narabayashi M, Sakanaka K, Ueki N, et al. Dose-volume metrics associated with radiation pneumonitis after stereotactic body radiation therapy for lung cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(4):e545-e9. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.01.018 PMid:22436782
  6. Amini I, Akhlaghi P, Sarbakhsh P. Construction and verification of a physical chest phantom from suitable tissue equivalent materials for computed tomography examinations. Radiat Phys Chem. 2018;150:51-7. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2018.04.020
  7. Winslow JF, Hyer DE, Fisher RF, Tien CJ, Hintenlang DE. Construction of anthropomorphic phantoms for use in dosimetry studies. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2009;10(3):195-204. doi:10.1120/jacmp.v10i3.2986 PMid:19692982 PMCid:PMC5720556
  8. Kry SF, Feygelman V, Balter P, Fraass B, Hopfensperger K, Jones K. AAPM Task Group 307: Use of patient phantoms for quality assurance of radiation therapy planning systems. Med Phys. 2017;44(10):e299-e327. doi:10.1002/mp.12466 PMid:28692137 PMCid:PMC5646228
  9. Chen WZ, Xiao Y, Li J. Impact of dose calculation algorithm on radiation therapy. World J Radiol. 2014;6(11):874-80. doi:10.4329/wjr.v6.i11.874 PMid:25431642 PMCid:PMC4241494
  10. Gurjar OP, Mishra S, Bhandari V, Pathak P, Patel P, Shrivastav G. Radiation dose verification using real tissue phantom in modern radiotherapy techniques. J Med Phys. 2014;39(1):44-9. doi:10.4103/0971-6203.125504 PMid:24600172 PMCid:PMC3931228
  11. Gray A, Oliver L, Johnston P. The accuracy of the pencil beam convolution and anisotropic analytical algorithms in predicting the dose effects due to attenuation from immobilization devices and large air gaps. Med Phys. 2009;36(7):3181-91. doi:10.1118/1.3147204 PMid:19673217
  12. Oyewale S. Dose prediction accuracy of collapsed cone convolution superposition algorithm in a multi-layer inhomogenous phantom. Int J Cancer Ther Oncol. 2013;1(1): 01016. doi:10.14319/ijcto.0101.6
  13. Semwal MK. Khan's the physics of radiation therapy. Mumbai: Medknow; 2020. doi:10.4103/jmp.JMP_17_20 PMCid:PMC7416864
  14. Kopačin V, Brkić H, Ivković A, Kasabašić M, Knežević Ž, Majer M, et al. Development and validation of the low‐cost pregnant female physical phantom for fetal dosimetry in MV photon radiotherapy. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024;25(2):e14240. doi:10.1002/acm2.14240 PMid:38150580 PMCid:PMC10860449
  15. Dixon MT, Shepherd D, Lancaster CM. The global need for affordable and accessible quality assurance in radiation oncology. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2021;52(1):10-6. doi:10.1016/j.jmir.2020.11.024.
  16. Valentin J. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values: ICRP Publication 89: Approved by the Commission in September 2001. Ann ICRP. 2002;32(3-4):1-277. doi:10.1016/S0146-6453(03)00002-2
  17. Wambersie A. ICRU report 44: Tissue substitutes in radiation dosimetry and measurement. Bethesda (US): International Commission on Radiation Units and measurements; 1989.
  18. Chang KP, Hung SH, Chie YH, Shiau AC, Huang RJ. A comparison of physical and dosimetric properties of lung substitute materials. Med Phys. 2012;39(4):2013-20. doi:10.1118/1.3694097 PMid:22482622
  19. Kron T, Azhari HA, Voon EO, Cheung KY, Ravindran PB, Soong YL, et al. A simple methodology for radiochromic film dosimetry in radiotherapy applications. Med Phys. 2016;43 (6): 3411-7.
  20. Podgorsak EB. Radiation oncology physics: A handbook for teachers and students. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency; 2005.
  21. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
  22. Yang J, Zhang B, Zhang T, Xu XG. A review of dosimetry simulators and phantoms for radiation therapy. J Radiat Res Appl Sci. 2019;12(1):236-44.
  23. Benedict SH, Yenice KM, Followill D, Galvin JM, Hinson W, Kavanagh B, et al. Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101. Med Phys. 2010;37(8):4078-101. doi:10.1118/1.3438081 PMid:20879569
  24. Tino R, Leary M, Yeo A, Kyriakou E, Kron T, Brandt M. Additive manufacturing in radiation oncology: A review of clinical practice, emerging trends and research opportunities. Int J Extreme Manuf. 2019;2(1):012003. doi:10.1088/2631-7990/ab70af
  25. Brock KK, Mutic S, McNutt TR, Li H, Kessler ML. Use of image registration and fusion algorithms and techniques in radiotherapy: Report of the AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group No. 132. Med Phys. 2017;44(7):e43-e76. doi:10.1002/mp.12256 PMid:28376237
  26. Ahmad S, Suh TS, Lee J. Affordable and sustainable QA phantoms for radiation oncology: A review. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2022;45(1):23-39. doi:10.1007/s13246-021-01087-y PMid:35023076
Volume 1, Issue 1
Summer 2025
Pages 38-45

  • Receive Date 22 July 2025
  • Revise Date 04 September 2025
  • Accept Date 13 September 2025