No Access

Development and Testing of a Durable and Novel Breast Phantom for Robotic Autonomous Ultrasound Systems

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, 305 Teer Engineering Building, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

E-mail Address: skr23@duke.edu

Current address: 304 Research Dr, Rm 131, Durham, NC 27705.

Search for more papers by this author

Amy Strong

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, 305 Teer Engineering Building, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Jiselle Havas

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, 305 Teer Engineering Building, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Daniel M. Buckland

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, 305 Teer Engineering Building, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

Department of Emergency Medicine, Duke University, 2301 Erwin Road, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

Search for more papers by this author

, and

Leila J. Bridgeman

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Duke University, 305 Teer Engineering Building, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

Search for more papers by this author

https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424905X22410100Cited by:2 (Source: Crossref)

This article is part of the issue:

Special Issue on ISMR 2022
Guest Editors: Iulian Ioan Iordachita and Elena De Momi

Abstract

For the safe and effective development of evolving autonomous medical robotic systems that traverse the surface of the body, like in breast ultrasound scans, developing phantoms that are durable and mechanically mimic human tissue is critical. In this work, a long lasting, inexpensive, and geometrically customizable phantom is described with mechanical and ultrasound acoustic properties that simulate human breast tissue. In comparison to prior work, a priority was designing a highly elastic phantom outer layer modulus 20 kPa and inner semi-liquid layer to mimic the difficulties of traversing human breast tissue with autonomous medical robotic systems. In addition, ultrasound images of the novel phantom with enclosed tumor are similar to in vivo image of human breast tissue with invasive ductal carcinoma, representing 80% of breast cancer cases. The performance of a force feedback controller on an autonomous ultrasound scanning system was compared for the novel phantom and a commercial phantom. Overall, the controller performed worse on the novel phantom — highlighting the importance of testing autonomous systems on realistic phantoms.

Published in JMRR Special Issue on International Symposium on Medical Robotics (ISMR 2022). Guest Editor: Iulian Ioan Iordachita.

NOTICE: Prior to using any material contained in this paper, the users are advised to consult with the individual paper author(s) regarding the material contained in this paper, including but not limited to, their specific design(s) and recommendation(s).

Keywords:

References

1. A. L. Klibanov and J. A. Hossack, Ultrasound in radiology: From anatomic, functional, molecular imaging to drug delivery and image-guided therapy, Investig. Radiol. 50(9) (2015) 657. Crossref, Google Scholar
2. A. Schoenfeld, J. Goverman, D. M. Weiss and I. Meizner, Transducer user syndrome: An occupational hazard of the ultrasonographer, Eur. J. Ultrasound 10(1) (1999) 41–45. Crossref, Google Scholar
3. T.-Y. Fang, H. K. Zhang, R. Finocchi, R. H. Taylor and E. M. Boctor, Force-assisted ultrasound imaging system through dual force sensing and admittance robot control, Int. J. Comput.-Assist. Radiol. Surg. 12 (2017). Crossref, Google Scholar
4. J. Carriere, J. Fong, T. Meyer, R. Sloboda, S. Husain, N. Usmani and M. Tavakoli, An admittance-controlled robotic assistant for semi-autonomous breast ultrasound scanning, 2019 Int. Symp. Medical Robotics (ISMR) (2019), pp. 1–7. Crossref, Google Scholar
5. S. Xiao, C. Wang, Y. Shi, J. Yu, L. Xiong, C. Peng and L. Yang, Visual optimization of ultrasound-guided robot-assisted procedures using variable impedance control, 2021 WRC Symp. Advanced Robotics and Automation (WRC SARA) (2021), pp. 128–133. Crossref, Google Scholar
6. P. Abolmaesumi, S. Salcudean, W.-H. Zhu, M. Sirouspour and S. DiMaio, Image-guided control of a robot for medical ultrasound, IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 18(1) (2002) 11–23. Crossref, Google Scholar
7. K. Li, Y. Xu and M. Q.-H. Meng, An overview of systems and techniques for autonomous robotic ultrasound acquisitions, IEEE Trans. Med. Robot. Bion. 3(2) (2021) 510–524. Crossref, Google Scholar
8. C. Hennersperger, B. Fuerst, S. Virga, O. Zettinig, B. Frisch, T. Neff and N. Navab, Towards MRI-based autonomous robotic US acquisitions: A first feasibility study, IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 36(2) (2017) 538–548. Crossref, Google Scholar
9. G. Ma, S. R. Oca, Y. Zhu, P. J. Codd and D. M. Buckland, A novel robotic system for ultrasound-guided peripheral vascular localization, 2021 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (2021), pp. 12321–12327. Crossref, Google Scholar
10. M. Victorova, M. K.-S. Lee, D. Navarro-Alarcon and Y. Zheng, Follow the curve: Robotic ultrasound navigation with learning-based localization of spinous processes for scoliosis assessment, IEEE Access 10 (2022) 40216–40229. Crossref, Google Scholar
11. F. Arce, L. Leija, A. Vera, M. Cepeda and G. Guerrero, Realistic novel breast and breast cancer phantoms for the study of imaging and therapy ultrasound, 2014 11th Int. Conf. Electrical Engineering, Computing Science and Automatic Control (CCE)(2014), pp. 1–4. Crossref, Google Scholar
12. S. R. Oca, J. Havas, L. J. Bridgeman and D. M. Buckland, Durable breast phantom with geometric and mechanical properties approximating human tissue for ultrasound image and robotic system testing, 2022 Int. Symp. Medical Robotics (ISMR) (IEEE, 2022), pp. 1–6. Crossref, Google Scholar
13. N. G. Ramião, P. S. Martins, R. Rynkevic, A. A. Fernandes, M. Barroso and D. C. Santos, Biomechanical properties of breast tissue, a state-of-the-art review, Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 15(5) (2016) 1307–1323. Crossref, Google Scholar
14. M. Eder, S. Raith, J. Jalali, A. Volf, M. Settles, H.-G. Machens and L. Kovacs, Comparison of different material models to simulate 3d breast deformations using finite element analysis, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 42(4) (2014) 843–857. Crossref, Google Scholar
15. T. A. Krouskop, T. M. Wheeler, F. Kallel, B. S. Garra and T. Hall, Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression, Ultrason. Imag. 20(4) (1998) 260–274. Crossref, Google Scholar
16. C. Tanner, J. A. Schnabel, D. L. Hill, D. J. Hawkes, M. O. Leach and D. R. Hose, Factors influencing the accuracy of biomechanical breast models, Med. Phys. 33(6Part1) (2006) 1758–1769. Crossref, Google Scholar
17. M. Griffin, Y. Premakumar, A. Seifalian, P. E. Butler and M. Szarko, Biomechanical characterization of human soft tissues using indentation and tensile testing, J. Vis. Exp. 118 (2016). Google Scholar
18. Hum3d, Female breast 3d model. Google Scholar
19. G. Murtaza, L. Shuib, A. W. Abdul Wahab, G. Mujtaba, H. F. Nweke, M. A. Al-garadi, F. Zulfiqar, G. Raza and N. A. Azmi, Deep learning-based breast cancer classification through medical imaging modalities: State of the art and research challenges, Artif. Intell. Rev. 53(3) (2020) 1655–1720. Crossref, Google Scholar
20. S. Itsukage, Y. Sowa, M. Goto, T. Taguchi and T. Numajiri, Breast volume measurement by recycling the data obtained from 2 routine modalities, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging, Eplasty 17 (2017). Google Scholar
21. B. Price, A. Gibson, L. Tan and G. Royle, An elastically compressible phantom material with mechanical and X-ray attenuation properties equivalent to breast tissue, Phys. Med. Biol. 55(4) (2010) 1177. Crossref, Google Scholar
22. M. Ruschin, S. R. Davidson, W. Phounsy, T. S. Yoo, L. Chin, J.-P. Pignol, A. Ravi and C. McCann, Multipurpose ct, ultrasound, and MRI breast phantom for use in radiotherapy and minimally invasive interventions, Med. Phys. 43(5) (2016) 2508–2514. Crossref, Google Scholar
23. F. Zarb, L. Rainford and M. F. McEntee, Developing optimized CT scan protocols: Phantom measurements of image quality, Radiography 17(2) (2011) 109–114. Crossref, Google Scholar
24. R. Li, C. Jackovatz, S. Xu, B. J. Wood, H. Ren, K. R. Nilsson and Z. T. Tse, A CT-visible thermal ablation phantom, 2020 Int. Symp. Medical Robotics (ISMR), (2020), pp. 30–35. Crossref, Google Scholar
25. K. E. Keenan, L. J. Wilmes, S. O. Aliu, D. C. Newitt, E. F. Jones, M. A. Boss, K. F. Stupic, S. E. Russek and N. M. Hylton, Design of a breast phantom for quantitative MRI, J. Magn. Reson. Imag. 44(3) (2016) 610–619. Crossref, Google Scholar
26. Y. He et al., 3D-printed breast phantom for multi-purpose and multi-modality imaging, Quant. Imag. Med. Surg. 9(1) (2019) 63. Crossref, Google Scholar
27. S. Y. Ng, Y.-L. Kuo and C.-L. Lin, Low-cost and easily fabricated ultrasound-guided breast phantom for breast biopsy training, Appl. Sci. 11(16) (2021) 7728. Crossref, Google Scholar
28. G. A. Sisney and K. A. Hunt, A low-cost gelatin phantom for learning sonographically guided interventional breast radiology techniques, Amer. J. Roentgenol. 171(1) (1998) 65–66. Crossref, Google Scholar
29. R. O. Bude and R. S. Adler, An easily made, low-cost, tissue-like ultrasound phantom material, J. Clin. Ultrasound 23(4) (1995) 271–3. Crossref, Google Scholar
30. M. Carbone, S. Condino, L. Mattei, P. Forte, V. Ferrari and F. Mosca, Anthropomorphic ultrasound elastography phantoms — characterization of silicone materials to build breast elastography phantoms, 2012 Annual Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (2012), pp. 492–494. Crossref, Google Scholar
31. S. Ng and C. Lin, Tunability of acoustic and mechanical behaviors in breast tissue mimicking materials, 2019 41st Annual Int. Conf IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC) (2019), pp. 1998–2002. Crossref, Google Scholar
32. M. Miyakawa, S. Takata and K. Inotsume, Development of non-uniform breast phantom and its microwave imaging for tumor detection by CP-MCT, 2009 Annual Int. Conf. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (2009), pp. 2723–2726. Crossref, Google Scholar
33. M. Z. Mahmoud, M. Aslam, M. Alsaadi, M. A. Fagiri and B. Alonazi, Evolution of robot-assisted ultrasound-guided breast biopsy systems, Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 11(1) (2018) 89–97. Google Scholar
34. R. Mebarki, A. Krupa and F. Chaumette, 2D ultrasound probe complete guidance by visual servoing using image moments, IEEE Trans. Robot. 26(2) (2010) 296–306. Crossref, Google Scholar
35. H. Morehouse, H. P. Thaker and C. Persaud, Addition of metamucil to gelatin for a realistic breast biopsy phantom, J. Ultrasound Med. 26(8) (2007) 1123–1126. Crossref, Google Scholar
36. A. Warehouse, Elastography ultrasound breast phantom. Google Scholar
37. C. C. Mendat, D. Mislan and L. Hession-Kunz, Patient comfort from the technologist perspective: factors to consider in mammographic imaging, Int. J. Women’s Health 9 (2017) 359. Crossref, Google Scholar
38. S. Virga, O. Zettinig, M. Esposito, K. Pfister, B. Frisch, T. Neff, N. Navab and C. Hennersperger, Automatic force-compliant robotic ultrasound screening of abdominal aortic aneurysms, 2016 IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (2016), pp. 508–513. Crossref, Google Scholar
39. Q. Huang, B. Wu, J. Lan and X. Li, Fully automatic three-dimensional ultrasound imaging based on conventional b-scan, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Circuits Syst. 12(2) (2018) 426–436. Crossref, Google Scholar
40. A. S. B. Mustafa, T. Ishii, Y. Matsunaga, R. Nakadate, H. Ishii, K. Ogawa, A. Saito, M. Sugawara, K. Niki and A. Takanishi, Development of robotic system for autonomous liver screening using ultrasound scanning device, 2013 IEEE Int. Conf. Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) (2013), pp. 804–809. Crossref, Google Scholar
41. K. H. Ang, G. Chong and Y. Li, Pid control system analysis, design, and technology, IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol. 13(4) (2005) 559–576. Crossref, Google Scholar
42. Trideus, Ultimaker s3 product data sheet. Google Scholar
43. H. G. Welch, P. C. Prorok, A. J. O’Malley and B. S. Kramer, Breast-cancer tumor size, overdiagnosis, and mammography screening effectiveness, New Engl. J. Med. 375(15) (2016) 1438–1447. Crossref, Google Scholar
44. A. C. Society, Types of breast cancer. Google Scholar
45. T. Geertsma, Invasive ductal carcinoma with marked architectural distortion. Google Scholar
46. H. Durrant-Whyte, N. Roy and P. Abbeel, Motion planning under uncertainty in highly deformable environments, Robot. Sci. Syst. VII (2012) 241–248. Google Scholar