Skip to main content

Table 1 Breast Phantom quality assessment

From: Imaging properties of 3D printed breast phantoms for lesion localization and Core needle biopsy training

 

Phantom Material

Pros

Cons

Material Hardness*

Phantom 1

VeroClear and VeroBlue

Sanitary

Anatomically accurate

No US penetrance

Poor tissue integrity simulation

Expensive

Not reusable

Shore D = 83–86

Phantom 2

Tango Plus

Sanitary

Anatomically accurate

No US penetrance

Poor tissue integrity simulation

Expensive

Not reusable

Shore A = 26–28

Phantom 3

Fat: Tissue Matrix and A30Clear

FGT: VeroClear and A30Clear

Sanitary

Realistic tissue integrity simulation

Anatomically accurate

No US penetrance

Expensive

Not reusable

Shore A = 30

Phantom 4

Chicken Breast with pimento olive targets

Excellent ultrasound penetration with easily visible target lesions

Realistic tissue integrity simulation

Affordable

Unsanitary

Not reusable

Anatomically inaccurate

Shore-000 = 36

Phantom 5

Knox Gelatin with blueberry targets

Excellent ultrasound penetration with easily visible target lesions

Affordable

Unsanitary

Excessively soft integrity

Not reusable

Anatomically inaccurate

Shore-00 = 10

  1. *Hardness values provided by manufacturer or based on established values of comparable materials [20, 21].