A ten-month study is presented of materials for use in heterogeneous elastography phantoms. The materials consist of gelatin with or without a suspension of microscopic safflower oil droplets. The highest volume percent of oil in the materials is 50%. Thimerosal acts as a preservative. The greater the safflower oil concentration, the lower the Young's modulus. Elastographic data for heterogeneous phantoms, in which the only variable is safflower oil concentration, demonstrate stability of inclusion geometry and elastic strain contrast. Young's modulus ratios (elastic contrasts) producible in a heterogeneous phantom are as high as 2.7. The phantoms are particularly useful for ultrasound elastography. They can also be employed in MR elastography, although the highest achievable ratio of longitudinal to transverse relaxation times is considerably less than is the case for soft tissues.
KrouskopT. A.WheelerT. M.KallelF.GarraB. S.HallT. J., Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression, Ultrasonic Imaging20, 260–274 (1998).
2.
HallT. J.BilgenM.InsanaM. F.KrouskopT. A., Phantom materials for elastography, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr.44, 1355–65 (1997).
3.
ErkampR. Q.EmelianovS. Y.SkovorodaA. R.ChenX.O'DonnellM., Exploiting strain-hardening to increase contrast in elasticity imaging, in Proc. IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium [3 unnumbered pages] (2000).
4.
ChuK. C.RuttBK, Polyvinyl alcohol cryogel: an ideal phantom material for MR studies of arterial flow and elasticity, Magn. Reson. Med.37, 314–319 (1997).
5.
De KorteC. L.CespedesE. L.Van der SteenA. F. W.NorderB.Te NijenhuisK., Elastic and acoustic properties of vessel mimicking material for elasticity imaging, Ultrasonic Imaging19, 112–126 (1997).
6.
MadsenE. L.ZagzebskiJ. A.FrankG. R., Oil-in-gelatin dispersions for use as ultrasonically tissue-mimicking materials, Ultrasound Medi. Biol.8, 277–287 (1982).
7.
MadsenE. L.ZagzebskiJ. A.FrankG.GreenleafJ.CarsonP., Anthropomorphic breast phantoms for assessing ultrasonic imaging system performance and for training ultrasonographers. Part II, J. Clinical Ultrasound10, 77–86 (1982).
8.
ZagzebskiJ. A.MadsenE. L.FrankG. R., A teaching phantom for sonographers, J. Clin. Ultrasound19, 27–38 (1991).
9.
MadsenE. L.ZagzebskiJ. A.FrankG.GreenleafJ.CarsonP., Anthropomorphic breast phantoms for assessing ultrasonic imaging system performance and for training ultrasonographers. Part I, J. Clinical Ultrasound10, 67–75 (1982).
10.
MadsenE. L.Kelly-FryE.FrankG. R., Anthropomorphic phantoms for assessing systems used in ultrasound imaging of the compressed breast, Ultrasound Med. Biol.14, 183–201 (1988).
11.
MadsenE. L.ZagzebskiJ. A.FrankG., An Anthropomorphic ultrasound breast phantom containing intermediate-sized scatterers, Ultrasound Med. Biol.8, 381–392 (1982).
12.
MadsenE. L.ZagzebskiJ. A.Ghilardi-NettoT., An anthropomorphic torso section phantom for ultrasonic imaging, Med. Phys.7, 42–501980.
MadsenE. L.Ultrasonic soft-tissue-mimicking materials, in Medical Physics of CT and Ultrasound: Tissue Imaging and Characterization, pp. 531–550 (Am. Inst. of Physics, New York, 1980).
15.
ChaturvediP.InsanaM. F.HallT. J., Testing the limitations of 2-D companding for strain imaging using phantoms, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr.45, 1022–1031 (1998).
16.
ZhuY.ChaturvediP.InsanaM. F., Strain imaging with a deformable mesh, Ultrasonic Imaging21, 7–146 (1999).
SkovorodaA. R.EmelianovS. Y.O'DonnellM., Tissue elasticity reconstruction based on ultrasonic displacement and strain images, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr.42, 747–765 (1995).
21.
ManducaA.MuthupillaiR.RossmanP. J.GreenleafJ. F.EhmanR. L., Image processing for magnetic resonance elastography, in SPIE, Vol. 2710, pp. 616–623 (1996).
22.
DuttV.KinickR. R.MuthupillaiR.OliphantT. E.EhmanR. L.GreenleafJ. F., Acoustic shear-wave imaging using echo ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance elastography, Ultrasound Med. Biol.26, 397–403 (2000).
23.
WeaverJ. B.Van HoutenE. E. W.MigaM. I.KennedyF. E.PaulsenK. D., Magnetic resonance elastography using 3D gradient echo measurements of steady-state motion, Med. Phys.28, 1620–1628 (2001).
GaoL.ParkerK. J.AlamS. K., Sonoelasticity imaging: theory and experimental verification, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.97, 3875–3886 (1995).
26.
FuD.LevinsonS. F.GracewskiS. M.ParkerK. J., Non-invasive quantitative reconstruction of tissue elasticity using an iterative forward approach, Phys. Med. Biol.45, 1495–1509 (2000).
27.
BraunJ.BuntkowskiG.BernardingJ.TolxdorffT.SackI., Simulation and analysis of magnetic resonance elastography wave images using coupled harmonic oscillators and Gaussian local frequency estimation, Magn. Reson. Imaging19, 703–713 (2001).
28.
PlewesD. B.BettyI.UrchukS. N.SoutarI., Visualizing tissue compliance with MR imaging, J. Magn. Reson. Imaging5, 733–738 (1995).
29.
RomanoA. J.BucaroJ. A.EhmanR. L.ShirronJ. J., Evaluation of a parameter extraction algorithm using MRI-based displacement measurements, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelect. Freq. Contr.47, 1575–1581 (2000).
SinkusR.LorenzenJ.SchraderD.DargatzM.HolzD., High-resolution tensor MR elastography for breast tumor detection, Phys. Med. Biol.45, 1649–1664 (2000).
35.
FowlkesJ. B.EmelianovS. Y.PipeJ. G.SkovorodaA. R.CarsonP. L.Magnetic-resonance imaging techniques for detection of elasticity variation, Med. Phys.22, 1771–1778 (1995).
36.
WuT.FelmleeJ. P.GreenleafJ. F.RiedererS. J.EhmanR. L., MR imaging of shear waves generated by focused ultrasound, Magn. Reson. Med.43, 111–115 (2000).
37.
BishopJ.SamaniA.SciarrettaJ.PlewesD. B., Two-dimensional MR elastography with linear inversion reconstruction: methodology and noise analysis, Phys. Med. Biol.45, 2081–2091 (2000).
38.
SamaniA.BishopJ.PlewesD. B., A constrained modulus reconstruction technique for breast cancer assessment, IEEE Trans. Med. Imag.20, 877–885 (2001).
39.
BishopJ.SamaniA.SciarrettaJ.LuginbuhlC.PlewesD. B., A signal/noise analysis of quasi-static MR elastography, IEEE Trans. Med. Imag.20, 1183–1187 (2001).
40.
DuckF. A., Physical Properties of Tissue — A Comprehensive Reference Book, p. 78, (Academic Press, London/New York, 1990).
41.
KallelF.PrihodaC. D.OphirJ., Contrast-transfer efficiency for continuously varying tissue moduli: simulation and phantom validation, Ultrasound Med. Biol.27, 1115–1125 (2001).
42.
PlewesD. B.BishopJ.SamaniA.SciarrettaJ., Visualization and quantification of breast cancer bio-mechanical properties with magnetic resonance elastography, Phys. Med. Biol.45, 1591–1610 (2000).
43.
MadsenE. L.BlechingerJ. C.FrankG. R., Low-contrast focal lesion detectability phantoms for 1H MR imaging, Med. Phys.18, 549–554 (1991).
44.
MadsenE. L.DongF.FrankG. R.Interlaboratory comparison of ultrasonic backscatter, attenuation and speed, J. Ultrasound Med.18, 615–631 (1999).
45.
BlechingerJ. C.MadsenE. L.FrankG. R., Tissue-mimicking gelatin-agar gels for use in magnetic resonance imaging phantoms, Med. Phys.15, 629–636 (1988).
46.
KallelF.BertrandM.OphirJ., Fundamental limitations on the contrast-transfer efficiency in elastography: An analytic study, Ultrasound Med. Biol.22, 463–470 (1996).
47.
GroddVon W.SchmittW. G. H., Protonenrelaxationsverhalten menschlicher und tierischer Gewebe in vitro, Anderungen bei autolyse und fixierung, Fortschr. Roentgenstr.139, 233–240 (1983).
48.
BottomleyP. A.FosterT. H.ArgersingerR. E.PfieferL. M., A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1–100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision and age, Med. Phys.11, 425–448 (1984).
49.
KoenigS. H.BrownR. D., Determinants of proton relaxation rates in tissue, Mag. Res. Med.1, 437–449 (1984).
50.
BorghiL.SavildiF.ScelsiR.VillaM., Nuclear magnetic resonance of protons in normal and pathological human muscles, Exp. Neurol.81, 89–96 (1983).
51.
BottomleyP. A.HardyC. J.ArgersingerR. E.Allen-MooreG., A review of 1H nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation in pathology: are T1 and T2 diagnostic?, Med. Phys.14, 1–37 (1987).
52.
NymanR.EricssonA.HemmingssonA., T1, T2 and relative proton density at 0.35 T for spleen, liver, adipose tissue and vertebral body: normal values, Magn. Reson. Med.3, 901–910 (1986).
53.
EhmanR. L.KjosB. O.HricakH.Relative intensity of abdominal organs in MR images, J. Comput. Assist. Tomog.9, 315–319 (1985).
54.
InsanaM. F.HallT. J.ChaturvediP.KargelCh., Ultrasonic properties of random media under uniaxial loading, J. Acoust. Soc. Am.110, 3243–3251 (2001).
