Characterization and evaluation of tissue-mimicking gelatin phantoms for use with MRgFUS

Journal of Therapeutic Ultrasound

Douglas A. Christensen²  Allison Payne⁵  Dennis L. Parker⁵  Brittany Coats⁴  Joshua de Bever³  Henrik Odéen¹  Alexis I. Farrer⁵ 

[1] Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;School of Computing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA;Utah Center for Advanced Imaging Research, Department of Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA

关键词: Tissue-mimicking;    MRgFUS;    Gelatin;    Phantoms;   

Others  :  1219183
DOI  :  10.1186/s40349-015-0030-y

 received in 2015-01-23, accepted in 2015-05-29,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

A tissue-mimicking phantom that accurately represents human-tissue properties is important for safety testing and for validating new imaging techniques. To achieve a variety of desired human-tissue properties, we have fabricated and tested several variations of gelatin phantoms. These phantoms are simple to manufacture and have properties in the same order of magnitude as those of soft tissues. This is important for quality-assurance verification as well as validation of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) treatment techniques.

Methods

The phantoms presented in this work were constructed from gelatin powders with three different bloom values (125, 175, and 250), each one allowing for a different mechanical stiffness of the phantom. Evaporated milk was used to replace half of the water in the recipe for the gelatin phantoms in order to achieve attenuation and speed of sound values in soft tissue ranges. These acoustic properties, along with MR (T ₁and T ₂ *), mechanical (density and Young’s modulus), and thermal properties (thermal diffusivity and specific heat capacity), were obtained through independent measurements for all three bloom types to characterize the gelatin phantoms. Thermal repeatability of the phantoms was also assessed using MRgFUS and MR thermometry.

Results

All the measured values fell within the literature-reported ranges of soft tissues. In heating tests using low-power (6.6 W) sonications, interleaved with high-power (up to 22.0 W) sonications, each of the three different bloom phantoms demonstrated repeatable temperature increases (10.4 ± 0.3 °C for 125-bloom, 10.2 ± 0.3 °C for 175-bloom, and 10.8 ± 0.2 °C for 250-bloom for all 6.6-W sonications) for heating durations of 18.1 s.

Conclusion

These evaporated milk-modified gelatin phantoms should serve as reliable, general soft tissue-mimicking MRgFUS phantoms.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Farrer et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stewart EA, Rabinovici J, Tempany CM, Inbar Y, Regan L, Gostout B et al.. Clinical outcomes of focused ultrasound surgery for the treatment of uterine fibroids. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85(1):22-9.
• [2]McDannold N, Hynynen K. Quality assurance and system stability of a clincal MRI-guided focused ultrasound system: four-year experience. Med Phys. 2006; 33(11):4307-12.
• [3]Blana A, Walter B, Rogenhofer S, Wielan WF. High-intensity focused ultrasound for the treatment of localized prostate cancer: 5-year experience. Urology. 2004; 63(2):297-300.
• [4]Crouzet S, Murat FJ, Pasticier G, Cassier P, Chapelon JY, Gelet A. High intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for prostate cancer: current clinical status, outcomes, and future perspectives. Int J Hyperthermia. 2010; 26(8):796-803.
• [5]Wu F, Wang ZB, Zhu H, Chen WZ, Zou JZ, Bai J et al.. Extracorporeal high intensity focused ultrasound treatment for patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005; 92(1):51-60.
• [6]Schmitz AC, Gianfelice D, Daniel BL, Mali WP, van den Bosch MA. Image-guided focused ultrasound ablation of breast cancer: current status, challenges, and future directions. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(7):1431-41.
• [7]Elias WJ, Huss D, Voss T, Loomba J, Khaled M, Zadicario E et al.. A pilot study of focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor. New Eng J Med. 2013; 369(7):640-8.
• [8]Lipsman N, Schwartz ML, Huang Y, Lee L, Sankar T, Chapman M et al.. MR-guided focused ultrasound thalamotomy for essential tremor: a proof-of-concept study. Lancet Neurol. 2013; 12:462-8.
• [9]Gianfelice D, Gupta C, Kucharczyk W, Bret P, Havill D, Clemons M. Palliative treatment of painful bone metastases with MR imaging-guided focused ultrasound. Radiology. 2008; 249(1):355-63.
• [10]Liberman B, Gianfelice D, Inbar Y, Beck A, Rabin T, Shabshin N et al.. Pain palliation in patients with bone metastases using MR-guided focused ultrasound surgery: a multicenter study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009; 16(1):140-6.
• [11]Madsen EL. Quality assurance for grey-scale imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2000; 26(S1):S48-50.
• [12]Payne A, de Bever J, Farrer A, Coats B, Parker DL, Christensen DA. A simulation technique for three-dimensional MR-guided acoustic radiation force imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2015; 42(2):674-84.
• [13]Eames MDC, Hananel A, Snell JW, Kassell NF, Aubry JF. Trans-cranial focused ultrasound without hair shaving: feasibility study in an ex vivo cadaver model. J Thera Ultrasound. 2013; 1:24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Gelatin Manufacturers Institute of America, gelatin handbook. 2012; p. 11–12. [http://www.gelatin-gmia.com/images/GMIA_Gelatin_Manual_2012.pdf]. Accessed on 13 Oct 2014.
• [15]Vyse Gelatin Company. [http://www.vyse.com/files/Profession%20Ballistic-Ordnance%20021308.pdf]. Accessed on 19 Jun 2015.
• [16]Madsen EL. Liquid or solid ultrasonically tissue-mimicking materials with very low scatter. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1998; 24(4):535-42.
• [17]Le HL. An investigation of pulse-timing techniques for broadband ultrasonic velocity determination in cancellous bone: a simulation study. Phy Med Biol. 1998; 43:2295-308.
• [18]Kak AC, Dines KA. Signal processing of broadband pulsed ultrasound: measurement of attenuation of soft biological tissues. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1978; 25:321-44.
• [19]Ishihara Y, Calderon A, Watanabe H, Okamoto K, Suzuki Y, Kuroda K et al.. A precise and fast temperature mapping using water proton chemical shift. Magn Reson Med. 1995; 34:814-23.
• [20]Technical Standards Committee AIUM. Standard methods for measuring performance of pulse-echo ultrasound imaging equipment: American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine Standard. AIUM, Laurel, MD; 1990.
• [21]Acoustic output measurement and labeling standard for diagnostic ultrasound equipment. AIUM, Laurel, MD; 1992.
• [22]Madsen EL, Zagzebski JA, Banjavie RA, Jutila RE. Tissue mimicking materials for ultrasound phantoms. Med Phys. 1978; 5(5):391-4.
• [23]Madsen EL, Zagzebski JA, Frank GR. Oil-in-gelatin dispersions for use as ultrasonically tissue-mimicking materials. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1982; 8(3):277-87.
• [24]Madsen EL. Ultrasonically soft tissue-mimicking materials and phantoms. Tissue Characterization with Ultrasound. Greenleaf JF, editor. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL; 1986.
• [25]ATS Laboratories Incorporated. [http://www.atslaboratories-phantoms.com/page10/index.html]. Accessed on 11 May 2015.
• [26]Computerized Imaging Reference Systems (CIRS) Incorporated. [http://www.cirsinc.com/products/all/84/quantitative-ultrasound-phantom/?details=specs]. Accessed on 11 May 2015.
• [27]CIRS Incorporated, tissue simulation and phantom technology product catalog. p. 24–26. [http://www.cirsinc.com/file/Products/Catalog/CIRS%20Catalog%20060614_web2.pdf]. Accessed on 11 May 2015.
• [28]Hall TJ, Bilgen M, Insana MF, Krouskop TA. Phantom materials for elastography. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 1997; 44(6):1355-65.
• [29]King RL, Herman BA, Maruvada S, Wear KA, Harris GR. Development of a HIFU phantom. In: Sixth International Symposium on Therapeutic Ultrasound. Coussios C-C, Haar G, editors. American Institute of Physics, Melville, NY; 2007: p.351-6.
• [30]Duck FA. Physical properties of tissues: a comprehensive reference book. Academic Press, A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, London, New York, San Francisco; 1990.
• [31]Palmeri ML, Sharma AC, Bouchard RR, Nightengale RW, Nightengale KR. A finite-element method model of soft tissue response to impulsive acoustic radiation force. IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control. 2005; 52(10):1699-712.
• [32]Pykett IL, Rosen BR, Buonanno FS, Brady TJ. Measurement of spin–lattice relaxation times in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Phy Med Biol. 1983; 28(6):723-9.
• [33]Matsuda S, Iwata H, Se N, Ikada Y. Bioadhesion of gelatin films crosslinked with glutaraldehyde. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 45(1):20-7.
• [34]Sung HW, Huang DM, Chang WH, Huang RN, Hsu JC. Evaluation of gelatin hydrogel crosslinked with various crosslinking agents as bioadhesives: in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res. 1999; 46(4):520-30.
• [35]Bigi A, Cojazzi G, Panzavolta S, Rubini K, Roveri N. Mechanical and thermal properties of gelatin films at different degrees of glutaraldehyde crosslinking. Biomaterials. 2001; 22:763-8.
• [36]de Carvalho RA, Grosso CRF. Characterization of gelatin based films modified with transglutaminase, glyoxal, and formaldehyde. Food Hydrocoll. 2003; 18(5):717-26.
• [37]Krumova M, López D, Benavente R, Mijangos C, Pereῆa JM. Effect of crosslinking on the mechanical and thermal properties of poly (vinyl alcohol). Polymer. 2000; 41:9265-72.
• [38]Odéen H, de Bever J, Almquist S, Farrer A, Todd N, Payne A et al.. Treatment envelope evaluation in transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound utilizing 3D MR thermometry. J Thera Ultrasound. 2014; 2:19. BioMed Central Full Text
• [39]Dillon C, Roemer R, Payne A. Quantifying perfusion-related energy losses during magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound. In: International Focused Ultrasound Foundation Symposium. Washington, DC: Metro Area, USA; 2014. Abstract 103-UF.
• [40]Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, Escaravage M, Graham SJ, Bronskill MJ et al.. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med. 2005; 54:507-12.
• [41]Rakow-Penner R, Daniel B, Yu H, Sawyer-Glover A, Glover GH. Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measure using IDEAL. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006; 23:87-91.
• [42]Ryu JK, Oh JH, Kim HG, Rhee SJ, Seo M, Jahng GH. Estimation of T2* relaxation times for the glandular tissue and fat of breast at 3T MRI system. J Korean Soc Magne Res Med. 2014; 18(1):1-6.
• [43]de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measure in vivo at 3T: preliminary results. Radiology. 2004; 230(3):652-9.
• [44]Hasgall PA, Di Gennaro F, Baumgartner C, Neufeld E, Gosselin MC, Payne D, et al. “IT’IS Database for thermal and electromagnetic parameters of biological tissues,” Version 2.6, January 13th, 2015. [www.itis.ethz.ch/database]. Accessed on 12 Aug 2014.
• [45]Basser PJ. Interstitial pressure, volume, and flow during infusion into brain tissue. Microvasc Res. 1992; 44:143-65.
• [46]Leipzig ND. The effect of substrate stiffness on adult neural stem cell behavior. Biomaterials. 2009; 30(36):6867-78.
• [47]Nagashima T. The finite element analysis of brain oedema associated with intracranial meningiomas. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 1990; 51:155-7.
• [48]Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T. Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging. 1998; 20(4):260-74.
• [49]Nordez A, Hug F. Muscle shear elastic modulus measured using supersonic shear imaging is highly related to muscle activity level. J Appl Physiol. 2010; 108:1389-94.
• [50]Kot BCW, Zhang ZJ, Lee AWC, Leung VYF, Fu SN. Elastic modulus of muscle and tendon with shear wave ultrasound elastography: variations with different technical settings. PLoS One. 2012; 7(8): Article ID e44348
• [51]Hamilton G. Investigations of the thermal properties of human and animal tissues. University of Glasgow: Department of Physics & Astronomy, Ph.D. Dissertation. 1998; p. 187.