Three-Dimensional Imaging, Printing, and Augmented Reality in Surgical Oncology: A Descriptive Implementation Framework at a Comprehensive Cancer Center
- 1Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
- 2Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
- 3Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
Abstract
Background: Three-dimensional (3D) visualization of radiological imaging has emerged as a valuable tool in surgical oncology, with applications spanning diagnostics, perioperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and patient communication. Despite its growing clinical relevance, integration into routine surgical workflows remains inconsistent and poorly standardized across specialties. Methods: We describe select cases illustrating a multispecialty feasibility and implementation experience evaluating the integration of 3D reconstruction, 3D printing, and augmented reality into surgical oncology workflows across a comprehensive cancer center. Describing cases and series of interest, we demonstrate how a structured implementation workflow was applied covering image acquisition, segmentation, volumetric rendering, and modality selection based on the specific clinical problem. A feasibility framework is proposed in terms of workflow integration, modality-to-problem fit, and clinical utility as described by the operating team. Results: Seven select case groups spanning pediatric, head and neck, urologic, gynecologic, and thoracic surgical oncology were included, with group sizes ranging from 1 to 14 patients. In 3 patients with hepatoblastoma, 3D printed anatomical models were successfully integrated into patient and family education consultations to convey tumor extent and the scope of planned resection. Segmentation-based visualization was implemented for preoperative planning in 2 patients with skull base malignancies, with the 3D workflow described as useful for operative planning by the operating team in both cases. Augmented reality (AR)-assisted 3D reconstruction was incorporated into the planning workflow for 3 patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors, facilitating review of vascular anatomy and assessment of the feasibility of nephron-sparing surgery. In 2 patients with suspected advanced ovarian cancer, volumetric rendering with AR was integrated into preoperative resectability planning. Among 14 patients undergoing chest wall tumor resection, patient-specific 3D printed ribcage replicas were used for preoperative implant preparation. In a separate cohort of 2 chest wall patients, AR visualization was used for spatial surgical planning. Conclusions: Across diverse oncologic contexts and surgical specialties, 3D reconstruction, printing, and augmented reality were successfully integrated into existing perioperative workflows, with each modality selected based on the specific clinical problem at hand. This experience describes a structured, modality-matched implementation framework that may serve as a practical starting point for institutions seeking to incorporate these technologies. Prospective, controlled studies are needed to establish independent clinical benefit. Broader adoption will require standardized selection criteria, prospective evaluation, and workflow adaptation for centers beyond high-volume academic institutions.
Related
- MDM-DDI: a drug–drug interaction prediction framework integrating multi-dimensional molecular features and memory-augmented networks
- The ADIPO-CARE Plan: A Comprehensive Implementation Framework for the Diagnosis and Management of People Living with Obesity—Experts’ Proposal
- Implementation and Performance of a Clinical Debriefing Programme in a Paediatric Emergency Department: A Descriptive Qualitative Review
- Design, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive educational program for microbiology laboratory personnel and graduate students in teaching hospitals
- Aortic Endograft Infection After COVID-19: A Single-Centre Case Series and a Proposed Descriptive Clinical–Radiological PET/CT Staging Framework
BibTeX
@article{oudeh2026threedimensional,
title = {{Three-Dimensional Imaging, Printing, and Augmented Reality in Surgical Oncology: A Descriptive Implementation Framework at a Comprehensive Cancer Center}},
author = {Ahmad Oudeh and Hayun H. Kim and Samer Michael and Jeremy W. Jen and Noah Frydenlund and Jacqueline S. Cho and Tulsi Patel and Sameer Kaza and Justin T. Gerstle and Gerald Behr and Anita Price and Jonathan A. Coleman and Whitney Sutton and Gaetano Rocco and Joshua N. Honeyman and Javin Schefflein},
journal = {Cancers},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3390/cancers18223627},
url = {https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/22/3627},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Three-Dimensional Imaging, Printing, and Augmented Reality in Surgical Oncology: A Descriptive Implementation Framework at a Comprehensive Cancer Center
AU - Ahmad Oudeh
AU - Hayun H. Kim
AU - Samer Michael
AU - Jeremy W. Jen
AU - Noah Frydenlund
AU - Jacqueline S. Cho
AU - Tulsi Patel
AU - Sameer Kaza
AU - Justin T. Gerstle
AU - Gerald Behr
AU - Anita Price
AU - Jonathan A. Coleman
AU - Whitney Sutton
AU - Gaetano Rocco
AU - Joshua N. Honeyman
AU - Javin Schefflein
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/13
JO - Cancers
DO - 10.3390/cancers18223627
UR - https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6694/18/22/3627
AB - Background: Three-dimensional (3D) visualization of radiological imaging has emerged as a valuable tool in surgical oncology, with applications spanning diagnostics, perioperative planning, intraoperative guidance, and patient communication. Despite its growing clinical relevance, integration into routine surgical workflows remains inconsistent and poorly standardized across specialties. Methods: We describe select cases illustrating a multispecialty feasibility and implementation experience evaluating the integration of 3D reconstruction, 3D printing, and augmented reality into surgical oncology workflows across a comprehensive cancer center. Describing cases and series of interest, we demonstrate how a structured implementation workflow was applied covering image acquisition, segmentation, volumetric rendering, and modality selection based on the specific clinical problem. A feasibility framework is proposed in terms of workflow integration, modality-to-problem fit, and clinical utility as described by the operating team. Results: Seven select case groups spanning pediatric, head and neck, urologic, gynecologic, and thoracic surgical oncology were included, with group sizes ranging from 1 to 14 patients. In 3 patients with hepatoblastoma, 3D printed anatomical models were successfully integrated into patient and family education consultations to convey tumor extent and the scope of planned resection. Segmentation-based visualization was implemented for preoperative planning in 2 patients with skull base malignancies, with the 3D workflow described as useful for operative planning by the operating team in both cases. Augmented reality (AR)-assisted 3D reconstruction was incorporated into the planning workflow for 3 patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors, facilitating review of vascular anatomy and assessment of the feasibility of nephron-sparing surgery. In 2 patients with suspected advanced ovarian cancer, volumetric rendering with AR was integrated into preoperative resectability planning. Among 14 patients undergoing chest wall tumor resection, patient-specific 3D printed ribcage replicas were used for preoperative implant preparation. In a separate cohort of 2 chest wall patients, AR visualization was used for spatial surgical planning. Conclusions: Across diverse oncologic contexts and surgical specialties, 3D reconstruction, printing, and augmented reality were successfully integrated into existing perioperative workflows, with each modality selected based on the specific clinical problem at hand. This experience describes a structured, modality-matched implementation framework that may serve as a practical starting point for institutions seeking to incorporate these technologies. Prospective, controlled studies are needed to establish independent clinical benefit. Broader adoption will require standardized selection criteria, prospective evaluation, and workflow adaptation for centers beyond high-volume academic institutions.
SN - 2072-6694
ER -