Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32072305›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2020

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

Arafat Ali, Rifat Wahab, Jimmy Huynh, Nicole Wake, Mary Mahoney

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review of imaging test phantoms.Journal of biomedical optics · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arafat AliDepartment of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA. Alia4@ucmail.uc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6541-8991
Rifat WahabDepartment of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Jimmy HuynhDepartment of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
Nicole WakeDepartment of Radiology, Montefiore Medical Center, 111 East 210th Street, Bronx, NY, 10467, USA.
Mary MahoneyDepartment of Radiology, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 234 Goodman Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45267, USA.
University of Cincinnati · USMontefiore Medical Center · US

Funding

TR&D 4: Revealing Microstructure: Biophysical modeling and validation for discovery and clinical careP41EB017183 · NIBIB · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Hersh Chandarana · 2014 to 2026
$19.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB017183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast 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.

methodsWe 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.

results3D 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.

conclusionsThere 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.

Indexed as

3D printingBreast biopsyBreast phantomCore needle biopsy

Identifiers

PMID32072305
PMCPMC7027021
OpenAlexW3012350718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.