RAPID

Researchers 3D Print Breast Phantoms for Better Training in Cancer Diagnosis

Eplus 3D

Share this Article

US researchers are looking for ways to improve the diagnosis of breast cancer and the use of phantoms, outlining their findings in the recently published ‘Imaging properties of 3D printed breast phantoms for lesion localization and core needle biopsy training.’

A core needle biopsy (CNB) often accompanies the process of diagnosing breast cancer, due to excellent accuracy; however, like any other technology, training is required for radiologists. The use of phantoms in training continues to be successful, allowing for hands-on education regarding procedures that involve imaging probes and procedural instruments. Affordability is a limiting factor though, with commercial biopsy phantoms typically priced from $350 to $450. Because of this, many training programs use alternative materials like food, imitating soft tissue.

In the development of 3D printed breast phantoms for this study, the researchers realized the ideal product would offer the following features:

  • Anatomical accuracy
  • Adequate visualization of target lesions
  • Tissue integrity
  • Potential for several uses
  • Easy maintenance
  • Affordability

Previous research studies have yielded a variety of 3D printed phantoms for purposes in bioprinting, dosimetric verification, cardiac health, and more.

“In the context of breast imaging, several papers have explored the benefit of 3D printed phantoms for image quality analysis, surgical planning, and implantable bioprinted breast scaffolds,” stated the authors. “Researchers have also created phantoms from 3D printed molds filled with ultrasound compatible polymers. However, to our knowledge, no 3D printed phantoms which accurately mimic breast tissue characteristics, are feasible for multimodality imaging, and are produced at a low cost, exist.”

Three samples were created, customized for both training in performing biopsies as well as imaging evaluation. Traditional phantoms were also fabricated, using chicken breasts, gelatin, and olives and blueberries to mimic tumors.

Breast Phantom quality assessment

Each phantom was assessed by a trained breast radiologist. They were also tested in biopsy training seminars (consisting of at least four trainees each time), rated on a scale of one to five.

Evaluations showed that the 3D printed breast phantoms were more accurate than the traditional models, with the TissueMatrix material demonstrating the best tactile simulation of tissue. The researchers did note, however, that there was a ‘pronounced limitation’ due to the lack of US beam penetration.

3D printed Breast Phantoms. Phantoms were printed in VeroClear (a), TangoPlus (b) and a new combination of TissueMatrix with a coating of VeroClear at 600 μm (c). Ultrasound (US) image (d) of the TangoPlus phantom demonstrates lack of sound penetration. Images obtained with standoff pad (e) shows similar findings. Both VeroClear and TissueMatrix phantoms had similar results on US imaging

The chicken breast phantom showed the best results in terms of US beam penetration, image quality, and material hardness. The phantom made from gelatin displayed ‘acceptable beam penetration and image quality,’ but inferior tactile stimulation quality.

Fragility of Knox gelatin phantom. Knox gelatin breast phantom (a) easily fragments with excessive pressure. Ultrasound images after several biopsy attempts create linear air tracts (b and c), reducing visibility of target lesions

“Gelatin is particularly fragile and the density too soft compared to human breast tissue. Small cracks created in the gelatin during routine handling, multiple biopsies, or excessive pressure from the probe can create pockets of air within the model and obstruct visualization of targets,” added the researchers in conclusion. “The short shelf life of the gelatin and creation of air tracks with each biopsy limits reusability. Preservatives may be added to extend shelf life; however, the single use nature of gelatin models makes preservatives unnecessary.

“Limitations of this study include the lack of additional types of printing technologies or materials, including flexible materials printed with the use of material extrusion, vat photopolymerization, and other types of material jetting printers (i.e. 3D Systems and Mimaki).”

What do you think of this news? Let us know your thoughts! Join the discussion of this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com.

[Source / Images: ‘Imaging properties of 3D printed breast phantoms for lesion localization and core needle biopsy training’]

Share this Article


Recent News

3D Printing News Unpeeled: Metal 3D Printing Pen, Shell Wall 3D Printing

Medical Goes Additive: How Social Networks Are Humanizing the 3D Printing Industry



Categories

3D Design

3D Printed Art

3D Printed Food

3D Printed Guns


You May Also Like

3D Printing Webinar & Event Roundup: March 26, 2023

Get ready for a busy week that’s chock full of webinars and events, both virtual and in-person, all around the world. Let’s not waste time, read on for all the...

3D Printing Industry Worth $13.5B, Will Reach $25B by 2025

According to its latest market data, SmarTech Analysis estimates that the 3D printing industry grew at a rapid pace of about 23% in 2022, reaching $13.5 billion. This number specifically...

CORE Industrial Partners’ 3D Printing Buying Spree Continues with New Acquisition

CORE Industrial Partners completes its eleventh 3D printing firm acquisition in less than five years. Headquartered in Chicago, this private equity firm continues to focus on acquiring manufacturing, industrial technology,...

3D Printing Webinar & Event Roundup: March 12, 2023

It’s a busy week for the 3D printing industry in terms of webinars and events! Satellite 2023 takes place in Washington, DC, while the International Dental Show is coming to...