Title of article :
Imaging properties of 3D printed breast phantoms for lesion localization and Core needle biopsy training
Author/Authors :
Ali, Arafat Department of Radiology - University of Cincinnati Medical Center - Cincinnati, USA , Wahab, Rifat Department of Radiology - University of Cincinnati Medical Center - Cincinnati, USA , Huynh, Jimmy Department of Radiology - University of Cincinnati Medical Center - Cincinnati, USA , Mahoney, Mary Department of Radiology - University of Cincinnati Medical Center - Cincinnati, USA , Wake, Nicole Department of Radiology - Montefiore Medical Center - Bronx, USA
Abstract :
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in females and frequently requires core
needle biopsy (CNB) to guide management. Adequate training resources for CNB suffer tremendous limitations in
reusability, accurate simulation of breast tissue, and cost. The relatively recent advent of 3D printing offers an
alternative for the development of breast phantoms for training purposes. However, the feasibility of this
technology for the purpose of ultrasound (US) guided breast intervention has not been thoroughly studied.
Methods: We designed three breast phantom models that were printed in multiple resins available through
Stratasys, including VeroClear, TangoPlus and Tissue Matrix. We also constructed several traditional breast phantoms
using chicken breast and Knox gelatin for comparison. These phantoms were compared side-by-side for ultrasound
penetrance, simulation of breast tissue integrity, anatomic accuracy, reusability, and cost.
Results: 3D printed breast phantoms were more anatomically accurate models than traditional breast phantoms.
The chicken breast phantom provided acceptable US beam penetration and material hardness for simulation of
human breast tissue integrity. Sonographic image quality of the chicken breast phantom was the most accurate
overall. The gelatin-based phantom also had acceptable US beam penetration and image quality; however, this
material was too soft and poorly simulated breast tissue integrity. 3D printed phantoms were not visible under US.
Conclusions: There is a large unmet need for a printable material that is truly compatible with multimodality
imaging for breast and other soft tissue intervention. Further research is warranted to create a realistic, reusable and
affordable material to 3D print phantoms for US-guided intervention training.
Keywords :
Breast phantom , Breast biopsy , Core needle biopsy , 3D printing
Journal title :
3D Printing in Medicine