Journal of radiological science and technology (대한방사선기술학회지:방사선기술과학)

Korean Society of Radiological Science (대한방사선과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Usefulness of Brain Phantom Made by Fused Filament Fabrication Type 3D Printer

적층 제조형 방식의 3D 프린터로 제작한 뇌 팬텀의 유용성

  • Lee, Yong-Ki (Department of Radiological Technology, Chungbuk Health & Science University) ;
  • Ahn, Sung-Min (Department of Radiological Science, Gachon University)
  • 이용기 (충북보건과학대학교 방사선과) ;
  • 안성민 (가천대학교 방사선학과)
  • Received : 2020.12.07
  • Accepted : 2020.12.27
  • Published : 2020.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The price of the Brain phantom (Hoffman 3D brain phantom) used in nuclear medicine is quite expensive, it is difficult to be purchased by a medical institution or an educational institution. Therefore, the purpose of present research is to produce a low-price 3D brain phantom and evaluate its usefulness by using a 3D printer capable of producing 3D structures. The New 3D brain phantom consisted of 36 slices 0.7 mm thick and 58 slices 1.5 mm thick. A 0.7 mm thick slice was placed between 1. 5 mm thick slices to produce a composite slice. ROI was set at the gray matter and white matter scanned with CT to measure and compare the HU, in order to verify the similarity between PLA which was used as the material for the New 3D brain phantom and acrylic which was used as the material for Hoffman 3D brain phantom. As a result of measuring the volume of each Phantom, the error rate was 3.2% and there was no difference in the signal intensity in five areas. However, there was a significant difference in the average values of HU which was measured at the gray and white matter to verify the similarity between PLA and acrylic. By reproducing the previous Hoffman 3D brain phantom with a 100 times less cost, I hope this research could contribute to be used as the fundamental data in the areas of 3D printer, nuclear medicine and molecular imaging and to increasing the distribution rate of 3D brain phantom.

Keywords

References

  1. Sweet WH. The uses of nuclear disintegration in the diagnosis and treatment of brain tumor. New England Journal of Medicine. 1951;245(23):875-8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM195112062452301
  2. Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography): Part 1. Description of system. British Journal of Radiology. 1973;46(552):1016-22. https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016
  3. Yoon MS, Hong SM, Heo YC, Han DK. A study on the fabrication and comparison of the phantom for computed tomography image quality measurements using three-dimensions printing technology. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2018; 41(6):595-602. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2018.41.6.595
  4. Cho ZH, Chan JK, Eriksson L. Circular ring transverse axial positron camera for 3-dimensional reconstruction of radionuclides distribution. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. 1976;23(1):613-22. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNS.1976.4328315
  5. Hoffman EJ, Phelps ME, Mullani NA, Higgins CS, Ter-Pogossian MM. Design and performance characteristics of a whole-body positron transaxial tomograph. Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1976;17(6):493-502.
  6. Cho JH. Fusion images of molecular imaging era PET-MRI. Molecular and Cellular Biology News. 2005;17(3):43-51.
  7. Kim JS, Park CR. The study of radiation exposure reduction by developing corpus striatum phantom. Journal of Radiological Science and Technology. 2017;40(4):595-603. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2017.40.4.09
  8. Park SO, Ahn SM. Gamma ray detection processing in PET/CT scanner. Journal of the Korean Society of Radiological Technology. 2006;29(3):125-32.
  9. International Electrotechnical Commission. EC Standard 61675-1: Radionuclide Imaging Devices-Characteristics and Test Conditions. Part 1. Positron Emission Tomographs. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland; 1998.
  10. Lee BI. Quality assurance and performance evaluation of PET/CT. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. 2008;42(2):137-44.
  11. Collins DL, Zijdenbos AP, Kollokian V, Sled JG, Kabani NJ, Holmes CJ, et al. Design and construction of a realistic digital brain phantom. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 1998;17(3):463-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.712135
  12. Lim GC, Jung JH, Heo YS, Choi Y. Nuclear medical imaging system. The Institute of Electronics and Information Engineers. 2013;40(7):29-42.
  13. Kim IY, Lee YG, Ahn SM. Effect of glucose level on brain FDG-PET images. Journal of Radiological Science and technology 2017;40(2):275-80. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2017.40.2.13
  14. Ham SM. Attenuation correction for human brain PET image using a CT template [Master Thesis]. Ewha Womans University; 2017.
  15. Lee JR, Choi Y, Choe YS, Lee KH, Kim SE, Shin SA, et al. Performance measurements of positron emission tomography: An investigation using general electric AdvanceTM. The Korean Journal of Nuclear Medicine. 1996;30(4):548-59.
  16. Teuho J, Johansson J, Linden J, Saunavaara V, Tolvanen T, Ters M. Quantitative bias in PET/MR from attenuation correction and reconstruction: A comparison with PET and PET/CT with an anatomical brain phantom and Hoffman brain phantom. IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium and Medical Imaging Conference; 2013.
  17. Li HJ, Votaw JR. Optimization of PET activation studies based on the SNR measured in the 3-D Hoffman brain phantom. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 1998;17(4);596-605. https://doi.org/10.1109/42.730404