3D printing of realistic body phantoms: Comparison of measured and simulated organ doses on the example of a CT scan on a pregnant woman

Abstract Background Medical examinations or treatment of pregnant women using ionizing radiation are sometimes unavoidable. In such cases, the risk of harm to the embryo and fetus after exposure to ionizing radiation must be carefully estimated. However, no commercially available anthropomorphic body phantoms of pregnant women are available for dose measurements. A promising possibility for the production of body phantoms for patient groups that are not adequately represented by the phantoms of reference persons is 3D printing. However, this approach is still in the evaluation phase. Purpose To print the abdomen of a woman in the late stage of pregnancy and compare the dose distribution measured using thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) in the printed phantom for two different computed tomography (CT) protocols with the corresponding results of Monte Carlo simulations on voxel models of the pregnant woman. Materials and methods The physical phantom was produced through multi‐material extrusion printing using different print materials identified in previous studies to simulate homogeneous soft tissues and the mean compositions of maternal and fetal bones. The 3D printed abdomen was combined with a conventionally produced anthropomorphic female phantom to obtain a whole‐body phantom of a pregnant woman. Dose values resulting from two different CT scans acquired at tube voltages of 80 and 120 kV were measured using TLDs positioned in the physical phantom and cross‐validated with the results of Monte Carlo simulations performed for two different voxel models. The first was a voxelized model of the produced phantom itself and the second a realistic digital model of a pregnant woman. Representative CT values of the materials used in the printed phantom were determined from the acquired CT images. Results The CT values of maternal and fetal tissue structures in the phantom are comparable to CT values of real human tissues. The difference between most organ doses measured in the 3D printed phantom and simulated in the voxel models was below 20% and equivalent within the measurement uncertainties. Only the dose to the fetal head was up to 50% higher and not equivalent for the realistic model and the 80 kV‐protocol. As expected, the agreement was better for the voxelized than for the realistic model. For both models a slight energy dependence was observed, with larger deviations for the 80‐kV protocol especially for organs located in the pelvic region. Conclusion Individualized physical body phantoms, such as that of a pregnant woman, can be produced using 3D printing. The good agreement between measured and simulated doses to the fetus cross‐validates both dosimetric methods. Therefore, this study demonstrates the suitability of 3D printing phantoms for patients not adequately represented by commercially available body phantoms of reference persons.