Tissue-Equivalent Phantom for Mammography

Model 011A
A REFINED QUALITY ASSURANCE TOOL FOR TODAY’S ADVANCED IMAGING SYSTEMS

Model 011A is a tissue-equivalent, anthropomorphic phantoms designed to test performance of any mammographic system. Simulated calcifications, fibrous ducts, and tumor masses are embedded into the phantom as test objects. Test objects range in size to allow system checks at varying levels of difficulty.

CIRS resin material mimics the photon attenuation coefficients of a range of breast tissues. The average elemental composition of the mimicked tissue is based on the individual elemental compositions of adipose and glandular tissues as reported by Hammerstein.

Attenuation coefficients are calculated by using the “mixture rule” and the Photon Mass Attenuation and Energy Absorption Coefficient Table of J.H. Hubbell.

Features:
  • Realistically Shaped
  • Tissue Equivalent
  • Monitor Image Quality & Dose

The methodology and design of these phantoms was developed by Dr. Panos Fatouros and his associates at the Medical College of Virginia.

Data Sheet

Tissue-Equivalent Phantom for Mammography: Data Sheet

References

Publication References

Milanfar P. Super-resolution imaging. CRC Press; 2011:394-396. View

Shafer CM, Samei E, Lo JY. The quantitative potential for breast tomosynthesis imaging. Medical Physics. 2010;37(3). View

Pachoud M. Development of a test object for an objective assessment of image quality in conventional or digital mammography. 2002; 219-225. View

Nassivera E, Nardin L. Daily quality control programme in mammography. Br J Radiol. 1996; 69(818):148-152. View

Skubic SE. The effect of breast composition on absorbed dose and image contrast. Medical Physics. 1989; 16(4). View

Fatouros PP, et al. Development and Use of Realistically Shaped Tissue Equivalent Phantoms for assessing the Mammographic Process. Presented at 74th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, Chicago IL,1988. View

Hu YH, Zhao W. The effect of angular dose distribution on the detection of microcalcifications in digital breast tomosynthesis. Med Phys. 2011;38(5):2455-66. View

Youn, Hanbean, Jong Chul Han, Seungman Yun, Soohwa Kam, Seungryong Cho, and Ho Kyung Kim. “Characterization of On-site Digital Mammography Systems: Direct versus Indirect Conversion Detectors.” Journal of the Korean Physical Society 66.12 (2015): 1926-935. Web. View

Izdihar K, Kanaga KC, Krishnapillai V, Sulaiman T. Determination of Tube Output (kVp) and Exposure Mode for Breast Phantom of Various Thicknesses/Glandularity for Digital Mammography. Malays J Med Sci. 2015;22(1):40-9. View

Baptista M, Di maria S, Barros S, et al. Dosimetric characterization and organ dose assessment in digital breast tomosynthesis: Measurements and Monte Carlo simulations using voxel phantoms. Med Phys. 2015;42(7):3788-800. View

Zhao, A., M. Santana, E. Samei, and J. Lo. “Comparison of Effects of Dose on Image Quality in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis across Multiple Vendors.” Proc. SPIE 10132, Medical Imaging 2017: Physics of Medical Imaging, 101324E, 2017. Web. View

Marimón, E., H. Nait-Charif, A. Khan, P. Marsden and O. Diaz. ” Scatter reduction for grid-less mammography using the convolution-based image post-processing technique “, Proc. SPIE 10132, Medical Imaging 2017: Physics of Medical Imaging, 101324D (March 9, 2017); View

Model: 011A Modality: Tag: