Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Respiratory motion poses a significant challenge for clinical workflows in diagnostic imaging and radiation therapy. Many technologies such as motion artifact reduction and tumor tracking have been developed to compensate for its effect. To assess these technologies, respiratory motion phantoms (RMPs) are required as preclinical testing environments, for instance, in computed tomography (CT). However, current CT RMPs are highly simplified and do not exhibit realistic tissue structures or deformation patterns. With the rise of more complex motion compensation technologies such as deep learning-based algorithms, there is a need for more realistic RMPs. This work introduces PixelPrint 4D , a 3D printing method for fabricating lifelike, patient-specific deformable lung phantoms for CT imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 4DCT dataset of a lung cancer patient was acquired. The volumetric image data of the right lung at end inhalation was converted into 3D printer instructions using the previously developed PixelPrint software. A flexible 3D printing material was used to replicate variable densities voxel-by-voxel within the phantom. The accuracy of the phantom was assessed by acquiring CT scans of the phantom at rest, and under various levels of compression. These phantom images were then compiled into a pseudo-4DCT dataset and compared to the reference patient 4DCT images. Metrics used to assess the phantom structural accuracy included mean attenuation errors, 2-sample 2-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test on histograms, and structural similarity index (SSIM). The phantom deformation properties were assessed by calculating displacement errors of the tumor and throughout the full lung volume, attenuation change errors, and Jacobian errors, as well as the relationship between Jacobian and attenuation changes. RESULTS: The phantom closely replicated patient lung structures, textures, and attenuation profiles. SSIM was measured as 0.93 between the patient and phantom lung, suggesting a high level of structural accuracy. Furthermore, it exhibited realistic nonrigid deformation patterns. The mean tumor motion errors in the phantom were ≤0.7 ± 0.6 mm in each orthogonal direction. Finally, the relationship between attenuation and local volume changes in the phantom had a strong correlation with that of the patient, with analysis of covariance yielding P = 0.83 and f = 0.04, suggesting no significant difference between the phantom and patient. CONCLUSIONS: PixelPrint 4D facilitates the creation of highly realistic RMPs, exceeding the capabilities of existing models to provide enhanced testing environments for a wide range of emerging CT technologies.