skip to main content
10.1145/3379299.3379307acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdmipConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Evaluation of Liver Phantom for Testing of the Detectability Multimodal for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Authors Info & Claims
Published:20 March 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

This study aims at developing a reusable, multimodal liver phantom, which applies functional vasculature and displays some pathologies, such as Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). This phantom can be used with different modalities, such as Ultrasonography (US), Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

The current phantom consisted of different types of mimicked tissue; liver parenchyma; HCC and major input and output vessels. They are made of different ingredients; 4% weight of gelatin powder; 2.6% weight of hydroxyethylcellulose; 0.2 weight % of benzalkonium chloride; 3.2% weight of propanediol; and 90% weight of water as a volume spreader. The selected materials mimicked liver tissue under MRI, CT and US.

The phantom preparation is simple, low cost, reusable, and takes about 24 hours for preparation. Additionally, comparison of ultrasound images, CT, and MRI of real patient's liver, the phantom's liver tissue with HCC and its structures are well simulated.

Using different steps to cast procedures, the researchers fabricated a multimodal liver phantom, with dynamic vascular channels, and models with different sized pathologies, which give a best procedure for training in different modalities. This technique can be applied to any organ in the body.

References

  1. Muntaser S. Ahmad, Nursakinah Suardi, Ahmad Shukri, Hjouj Mohammad, Ammar A. Oglat, Bassam M. Abu- nahel, Aboubakr M.H Mohamed, Osama Makhamrah, Current Status Regarding Tumour Progression, Surveillance, Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment Of HCC A Literature Review, J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Res., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 19--31, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Z. Younossi, R. Loomba, M. Rinella, E. Bugianesi, and B. Marchesini, Current and Future Therapeutic Regimens for Non-alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease (NAFLD) and Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis (NASH), Hepatology, no. 5, pp. 1--36, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. H. Xu, W. H. Chang, H. W. Fu, T. Yuan, and P. Chen, The mRNA, miRNA and lncRNA networks in hepatocellular carcinoma: An integrative transcriptomic analysis from Gene Expression Omnibus, Mol. Med. Rep., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 6472--6482, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Wongjarupong, N., Negron-Ocasio, G. M., Chaiteerakij, R., Addissie, B. D., Mohamed, E. A., Mara, K. C., ... & Ward, M. M., Model combining pre-transplant tumor biomarkers and tumor size shows more utility in predicting hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence and survival than the BALAD models, World J. Gastroenterol., vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 1321--1331, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Lee, Y. J., Lee, J. M., Lee, J. S., Lee, H. Y., Park, B. H., Kim, Y. H., ... & Choi, B. I, Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Diagnostic Performance of Multidetector CT and MR Imaging-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis., Radiology, vol. 275, no. 1, pp. 97--109, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Heimbach, J. K., Kulik, L. M., Finn, R. S., Sirlin, C. B., Abecassis, M. M., Roberts, L. R., ... & Marrero, J. A, AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, Hepatology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 358--380, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. B. Schellhaas, R. S. Görtz, L. Pfeifer, C. Kielisch, M. F. Neurath, and D. Strobel, Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: ESCULAP versus CEUS-LI-RADS, Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol., vol. 29, no. 9, pp. 1036--1044, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Hyun, S. H., Eo, J. S., Song, B. I., Lee, J. W., Na, S. J., Hong, I. K., ... & Yun, M., Preoperative prediction of microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma using 18F-FDG PET/CT: a multicenter retrospective cohort study, Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 720--726, 2018.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Gear, J. I., Cummings, C., Craig, A. J., Divoli, A., Long, C. D., Tapner, M., & Flux, G. D., Abdo-Man: a 3D-printed anthropomorphic phantom for validating quantitative SIRT, EJNMMI Phys., vol. 3, no. 1, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. C. T. Martinsen, H. K. Sether, D. R. Olsen, P. Skaane, and H. M. Olerud, Reduction in dose from ct examinations of liver lesions with a new postprocessing filter: A ROC phantom study, Acta radiol., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 303--309, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker, M. E., Dong, F., Primak, A., Obuchowski, N. A., Einstein, D., Gandhi, N., ... & Vachani, N., Contrast-to-noise ratio and low-contrast object resolution on full- and low-dose MDCT: Safire versus filtered back projection in a low-contrast object phantom and in the liver, Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 199, no. 1, pp. 8--18, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Schindera, S. T., Torrente, J. C., Ruder, T. D., Hoppe, H., Marin, D., Nelson, R. C., & Szucs-Farkas, Z., Decreased detection of hypovascular liver tumors with MDCT in obese patients: A phantom study, Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 196, no. 6, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Kim, K. S., Lee, J. M., Kim, S. H., Kim, K. W., Kim, S. J., Cho, S. H., ... & Choi, B. I., Image Fusion in Dual Energy Computed Tomography for Detection of Hypervascular Liver Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Phantom and Preliminary Studies, Invest. Radiol., vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 149--157, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. M. K. Chmarra, R. Hansen, R. Mårvik, and T. Langø, Multimodal Phantom of Liver Tissue, PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1--9, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. E. In, H. Naguib, and M. Haider, Mechanical stability analysis of carrageenan-based polymer gel for magnetic resonance imaging liver phantom with lesion particles, no. May, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. N. Shevchenko, J. Schwaiger, M. Markert, W. Flatz, and T. C. Lueth, Evaluation of a resectable ultrasound liver phantom for testing of surgical navigation systems, roceedings Annu. Int. Conf. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. EMBSP, pp. 916--919, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. A. Pacioni, M. Carbone, C. Freschi, R. Viglialoro, and V. Ferrari, Patient-specific ultrasound liver phantom: materials and fabrication method, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Rethy, A., Sæternes, J. O., Halgunset, J., Mårvik, R., Hofstad, E. F., Sánchez-Margallo, J. A., & Langø, T., Anthropomorphic liver phantom with flow for multimodal image-guided liver therapy research and training, Int. J. Comput. Assist. Radiol. Saurgery, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1--12, 2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Banovac, F., Tang, J., Xu, S., Lindisch, D., Chung, H. Y., Levy, E. B., ... & Cleary, K., Precision targeting of liver lesions using a novel electromagnetic navigation device in physiologic phantom and swine, Med. Phys., vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 2698--2705, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Joe, E., Kim, S. H., Lee, K. B., Jang, J. J., Lee, J. Y., Lee, J. M., ... & Choi, B. I., Noninvasive Determination of Hepatic Iron Accumulation 1 Purpose: Methods: Results:, Radiology, vol. 262, no. 1, pp. 126--35, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. G. Widmann, D. Wallach, G. Toporek, P. Schullian, S. Weber, and R. Bale, Angiographic C-arm CT-versus MDCT-guided stereotactic punctures of liver lesions: Nonrigid phantom study, Am. J. Roentgenol., vol. 201, no. 5, pp. 1136--1140, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Muntaser S. Ahmad, Nursakinah Suardi, Ahmad Shukri, Hjouj Mohammad, Ammar A. Oglat, Azzam Alarab, Osama Makhamrah, Chemical Characteristics, Motivation, and Strategies in Choice of Materials Used as Liver Phantom: A Literature Review, J. Med. Ultrasound, vol. 4, no. 19, pp. 115--117, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. S. M. I. Technologies, Molti-modality DCE Perfusion Phantom, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. B. Driscoll, H. Keller, and C. Coolens, Development of a dynamic flow imaging phantom for dynamic contrast-enhanced CT, Med. Phys., vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 4866--4880, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. M. Peladeau-Pigeon and C. Coolens, Computational fluid dynamics modelling of perfusion measurements in dynamic contrast-enhanced computed tomography: Development, validation and clinical applications, Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 58, no. 17, pp. 6111--6131, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. B. Driscoll, H. Keller, D. Jaffray, and C. Coolens, Development of a dynamic quality assurance testing protocol for multisite clinical trial DCE-CT accreditation, Med. Phys., vol. 40, no. 8, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Evaluation of Liver Phantom for Testing of the Detectability Multimodal for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      DMIP '19: Proceedings of the 2019 2nd International Conference on Digital Medicine and Image Processing
      November 2019
      59 pages
      ISBN:9781450376983
      DOI:10.1145/3379299

      Copyright © 2019 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 March 2020

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader