
==== Front
MAGMA
MAGMA
Magma (New York, N.y.)
0968-5243
1352-8661
Springer International Publishing Cham

38896407
1181
10.1007/s10334-024-01181-8
Review
Phantoms for Quantitative Body MRI: a review and discussion of the phantom value
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9070-5255
Keenan Kathryn E. kathryn.keenan@nist.gov

1
Jordanova Kalina V. 1
Ogier Stephen E. 12
Tamada Daiki 3
Bruhwiler Natalie 1
Starekova Jitka 3
Riek Jon 4
McCracken Paul J. 4
Hernando Diego 3
1 grid.94225.38 000000012158463X Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305 USA
2 https://ror.org/02ttsq026 grid.266190.a 0000 0000 9621 4564 Department of Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO USA
3 https://ror.org/01y2jtd41 grid.14003.36 0000 0001 2167 3675 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI USA
4 grid.492736.d ICON Plc, Blue Bell, PA USA
19 6 2024
19 6 2024
2024
37 4 535549
22 12 2023
18 5 2024
11 6 2024
© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
In this paper, we review the value of phantoms for body MRI in the context of their uses for quantitative MRI methods research, clinical trials, and clinical imaging. Certain uses of phantoms are common throughout the body MRI community, including measuring bias, assessing reproducibility, and training. In addition to these uses, phantoms in body MRI methods research are used for novel methods development and the design of motion compensation and mitigation techniques. For clinical trials, phantoms are an essential part of quality management strategies, facilitating the conduct of ethically sound, reliable, and regulatorily compliant clinical research of both novel MRI methods and therapeutic agents. In the clinic, phantoms are used for development of protocols, mitigation of cost, quality control, and radiotherapy. We briefly review phantoms developed for quantitative body MRI, and finally, we review open questions regarding the most effective use of a phantom for body MRI.

Keywords

Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Phantoms
Clinical Trial
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000002 National Institutes of Health R01 EB030497 RO1 EB031886 R44 EB025729 Hernando Diego issue-copyright-statement© European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology (ESMRMB) 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Body MRI includes multiple quantitative methods at various stages of development, validation, and dissemination. Quantitative MRI methods measure properties intrinsic to tissue on a per-voxel basis. Relevant quantitative body MRI methods and metrics focus on stiffness [1], proton density fat fraction (PDFF) [2], diffusion (ADC) [3], perfusion [4], susceptibility [5], dynamic imaging [6], and relaxometry (e.g., T1, T2, T2*, R2, R2*) [7]. For development of these methods, it is necessary to demonstrate low bias and high reproducibility across systems. Once a method is implemented in a clinical trial or clinical practice, it is necessary to demonstrate continued reproducibility across multiple sites, over time, and following system changes.

An MRI phantom, also known as a reference object, serves as a versatile tool for evaluating bias and reproducibility in quantitative measurements. MRI research groups use phantoms to validate new MRI quantitative methods and conduct multi-site assessments of bias and reproducibility [8, 9]. Furthermore, phantoms are used in imaging-based clinical trials, encompassing assessments of the clinical value of MRI methods [10, 11] and investigations into therapeutic agents [12]. Beyond MRI methods research, phantoms play a crucial role in quality control (QC) measurements on scanners and serve as educational tools.

For body MRI, phantoms have been developed to evaluate specific quantitative MRI techniques, for example, elastography (MRE), chemical shift-encoded proton density fat fraction mapping [13–15], quantification of diffusion [16–18] and perfusion [19–21], susceptibility mapping [5], dynamic imaging [22], and relaxometry [8, 23, 24]. Given the challenges of body MRI in the presence of physiological motion, many phantoms used by this community simulate motion found within the torso, such as respiratory, cardiac, and blood flow [16, 17, 23, 25–32]. MRI methods research often uses a broad range of phantoms, including custom-developed and home-built phantoms. Additionally, phantoms relevant to body MRI are commercially available from companies such as CaliberMRI, Calimetrix, CIRS (Sun Nuclear), Gold Standard Phantoms, Modus Medical Devices, Resonance Health, Resoundant, and Spectronic Medical.

In this paper, we review the value of phantoms for body MRI in the context of their uses for quantitative MRI methods research, clinical trials, and clinical imaging. Then, we briefly review phantoms developed for quantitative body MRI across applications and discuss their availability. Finally, we review open questions regarding the most effective use of a phantom.

What is the value of a phantom?

Value is defined by the usefulness of an object. Considering the value of phantoms for quantitative body MRI, we identified several uses of phantoms across MRI methods research, clinical trials, and clinical use (Fig. 1). Phantoms are used to measure and limit bias in MRI data. Periodic use of phantoms is necessary for maintaining reproducibility of MRI data by ensuring that scanners are operating correctly, and sites have the hardware, software, and technical capability to produce the required imaging. Additionally, phantoms are increasingly used for education and training.Fig. 1 A summary of the key uses of phantoms identified in this paper, across three categories: MRI methods research (“research”), clinical trials, and clinical use. Several phantom uses overlap across the categories; for example, phantoms are used in clinical trials and in the clinic for protocol development, patient and cost management, quality control, and protection from future errors. In this paper we review these uses: first common uses across all categories, then uses in research and clinical trials or clinical trials and clinical, and finally those uses that are predominately limited to one of MRI methods research, clinical trials, or clinical practice

One clear demonstration of value is the use of phantoms in the accreditation necessary for medical insurance reimbursement. In the United States, the American College of Radiology (ACR) accreditation program verifies the quality of MRI services provided by accredited institutions [33] using phantoms designed by the ACR (for phantom details, see Ref. [34]). The annual evaluation includes assessment of high-contrast spatial resolution, distance measurements and accuracy, low-contrast detectability, signal uniformity, image ghosting ratio, slice position accuracy, slice thickness accuracy, and image artifacts [35]. Based on the results, medical physicists and service engineers can identify and correct performance issues, leading to consistent image quality [36]. For example, when used twice-monthly (i.e., beyond the recommended use), the ACR MRI phantom improved service engineer workflow [36]. Throughout the world, there are similar recommendations from radiological societies and equipment vendors to use phantoms for achieving image quality [37, 38].

Accreditation, improvements in image quality, and service engineer workflow illustrate the value of a phantom for MRI system assessment. Body MRI methods measure many quantitative properties of tissue, which benefit further from the use of the corresponding quantitative phantoms. The Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA), established in 2007 by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), recommended the development and use of phantoms in quantitative imaging for quality control, multi-center studies, and standardization [39]. Here we review the uses of phantoms: first common uses across all categories, then specifically in MRI methods research, in clinical trials, and finally in clinical practice.

Common uses of phantoms in quantitative body MRI

Certain uses of phantoms are common throughout the MRI community, including for body MRI. These are measuring bias, assessing reproducibility, and training.

Measuring bias and assessing reproducibility

It is important to identify, understand and limit any systematic measurement errors (bias) of a method. Quantitative phantoms are key to measuring bias in quantitative MRI techniques [40]. Given the known value to be measured in the phantoms (known either by construction or based on reference measurements), the measurement bias can be determined.

Reproducibility is concerned with the ability of a method to measure the same feature under changing conditions that could be expected in the clinic (e.g., across multiple sites, over time, or using different scanners) [41]. Importantly, reproducibility is frequently assessed along with the bias to demonstrate a method is suitable for in vivo use [12, 41–43]. Phantoms play an essential role in evaluating the reproducibility of MRI, particularly in quantitative mapping [8]. Phantoms are useful for reproducibility assessment because they can mitigate unwanted confounders in MR measurements that can introduce variability in the MR signals, such as physiological motion, diurnal variation, and prandial changes. Further, the same phantom (or nearly identical replicas) can be easily shipped to multiple sites. Nearly identical replica phantoms can be constructed using the same batch of materials, and the reference values can be obtained by a central service, as in the case of the commercial, spherical system phantom [44], or through measurements of all phantoms by a central site, similar to Schneider et al. [13]. Then, any observed variation in the phantoms can be considered when assessing the reproducibility of quantitative methods. Numerous studies have corroborated the effectiveness of MRI phantoms in reproducibility studies. Phantoms with materials designed for a particular application, such as T1 and T2 measurement, are widely used to evaluate reproducibility [5, 45–49]. MRI phantoms are essential in multi-center studies, as they provide a standardized approach for assessing reproducibility across different platforms, which is vital for improving diagnostic accuracy [14, 22, 50–53]. Furthermore, long-term evaluation of MRI system stability, as enabled by phantoms with appropriate shelf-life properties, is essential for the deployment of quantitative MRI [13].

Education and training

MRI phantoms are increasingly used for educational and training purposes [54]. This is driven by several factors, including the need to reduce the use of volunteers, to address time constraints on training, and to ensure uniformity in training. The recent COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions have further encouraged the adoption of phantoms for training.

Qualitative phantoms developed for multiple imaging modalities can produce realistic MR images by mimicking organs, vasculature, and common pathologies, including tumors. These are suitable for teaching and training, including for MRI-guided interventions [25, 28, 55–58]. Furthermore, the phantom is a convenient device to scan as part of a training exercise when using new tools or techniques, such as MRE equipment.

Quantitative MRI phantoms can be used to facilitate the teaching of MRI principles and MRI scanning to radiologists, technologists, and engineering and medical physics students. They can be used to demonstrate different quantitative MRI techniques and ensure that trainees obtain the expected value, especially when learning new protocols. For example, a simple ice water phantom (with a predictable diffusion coefficient due to the effective temperature control) was used to train sites using different scanners, measurement protocols, and software tools on the correct measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient [59]. Finally, quantitative MRI phantoms can also be used to identify and correct common MRI artifacts and quantitative confounding factors.

Value of phantoms for quantitative body MRI methods research

In addition to the previously mentioned uses, phantoms are used in body MRI methods research for novel methods development and the design of techniques to overcome confounding factors.

Novel methods development

The first phantom use-case often occurs during the design and validation phase of a new method. While many research phantoms are designed to be replicated by other sites and groups [24], the phantoms used for initial methods development can be home-made or single-use as long as they are sufficiently well-characterized. Although this use-case typically consists of a small user base (e.g., a single research group), the downstream effects of the phantom can be quite influential if the method developed using it makes it to the clinic. In such cases, it is possible that the phantom itself will be further developed as the method is disseminated. Examples of phantoms for body MRI that started as single-use research phantoms and have progressed to commercially available products include the PDFF phantoms [14, 43, 60] made by Calimetrix (Madison, WI, USA) and the MRE phantoms [61] made by Resoundant (Rochester, MN, USA).

At this early stage in methods development, phantoms are also used to evaluate repeatability [8]. Repeatability concerns the ability of a method to measure the same feature under nearly identical conditions [41]. Test–retest repeatability in a phantom is important to assess basic stability of a method. If a method has poor repeatability in a phantom, it is not ready for in vivo use. However, to understand the true repeatability of a method we recommend moving beyond a phantom and testing repeatability in vivo.

Techniques for overcoming confounding factors

Many quantitative body MRI methods involve measuring multiple quantitative properties of one tissue or measuring a single parameter that is impacted by other confounding factors. For example, multiple MRI parameters are used in the diagnosis and monitoring of diffuse liver disease. Fat, iron, and fibrosis can all affect the MR signal in the liver in different ways, as measured by PDFF, R2 or R2*, and T1, respectively. However, these parameters can confound each other if not adequately addressed. For example, R2* and T1 relaxation can confound PDFF quantification, fat can confound R2* quantification, and both fat and R2* can confound T1 quantification. Mixed quantitative MRI phantoms [60] are a valuable tool for assessing the measurement bias in these situations. By providing a controlled environment in which the effects of different tissue properties can be studied independently and in combination, mixed phantoms contribute to quantitative MRI sequences with less bias for the diagnosis and monitoring of liver diseases. For example, PDFF and R2* are frequently assessed using the same phantoms [14, 46, 50]. In prostate imaging, phantoms facilitate evaluation for multiparametric MRI, such as ADC, T1, R2*, radiomics features, and ROI volumes [47, 62–64]. Similarly, in breast imaging, phantoms contain fat to assess fat suppression, materials to modulate ADC and T1, and components to mimic dynamic contrast effects [22, 65, 66].

Motion is another confounding factor in body imaging applications. Numerous phantoms designed to emulate physiological motion have been proposed to validate imaging techniques. Numerical, or digital, phantoms can be used to evaluate the effects of respiratory motion for a variety of imaging applications and conditions that can be prohibitively difficult to perform in vivo [67]. Phantoms that mimic respiratory motion can be used to evaluate the degradation of image quality caused by bulk motion [27, 68], assess the quantitative accuracy of diffusion measurements [16], and develop new methods to address these issues. As an example, in the studies by Geng et al., the researchers used a compressive motion phantom (3D phantom of liver and pancreas) to simulate the impact of cardiovascular pulsation and breathing motion in diffusion MRI of the abdomen. They found that motion could cause a significant bias in ADC values in some parts of the liver and pancreas. This finding contributed to the development of motion-robust DWI sequences, with the potential to improve diagnostics in these organs [17, 18]. Similarly, Zhong et al. used a home-built motion phantom to assess the performance of PDFF quantification in chemical shift encoded MRI [23]. A motion phantom is not only effective in validating the accuracy of flow measurements gathered through phase-contrast MRI [69], but it also proves useful for validating strain measurement using cine phase-contrast MRI [30]. Although phantoms cannot replicate the complexity of physiological motion observed in vivo, the ability to control (and stop) motion makes phantoms invaluable tools in body MRI methods research.

Value of phantoms for quantitative body MRI in clinical trials

Clinical trials are used to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of a therapeutic agent or a device, and imaging is one frequently employed tool that supports this determination. Clinical trials are also used to demonstrate the clinical value of new imaging methods. Clinical research organizations (CROs) are often engaged to execute all or part of a clinical trial for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or medical device companies. In addition to the common use cases for phantoms, the use of quantitative MRI phantoms in clinical trials reduces the risk of scanning a participant incorrectly, erroneously including or excluding a patient from participating in a clinical trial, and reporting values or changes in quantitative imaging measurements that are due to changes in equipment or imaging technique rather than changes due to therapeutic intervention.

Because clinical trials are usually carried out by multiple clinical investigators at different locations around the world, there is a great need to ensure consistency throughout the range of imaging equipment and personnel that will participate in the clinical trial. Quantitative MRI phantoms, coupled with training and centralized image review, are an essential tool in providing this consistency. Before an imaging site begins scanning patients for trial eligibility or baseline measurements, a site qualification process is often followed. Site qualification usually involves obtaining images of the quantitative MRI phantoms and submitting them to the CRO. Then, the CRO will ensure that all the imaging parameters required to calculate the quantitative measurements are correct. To complete site qualification, the submitted images of the phantoms are used to characterize the performance of the scanner by confirming that the quantitative measurements in the phantoms are within expected ranges. During a trial, the phantoms can be used to determine if the performance of the scanner changes over time (longitudinal QC).

Development of protocols

As described earlier, phantoms can be used to define and test protocols prior to actual use in the clinic or a clinical trial. Both qualitative and quantitative MRI phantoms are useful for developing or updating body MRI protocols, because they provide a consistent and reproducible environment for testing and optimizing imaging parameters. For example, a recent study used an abdominal phantom to design a standardized workflow and multimodal imaging pipeline to detect liver lesions [70].

As institutional review boards increasingly limit the use of volunteers for site qualification, the use of phantoms for testing and optimizing protocols prior to patient involvement limits the need for subject scans and reduces site liability while ensuring tested and validated protocols [54]. Preliminary testing using phantoms minimizes the reliance on animal and human subjects, thereby reducing ethical dilemmas related to protocol testing and development.

Patient and cost management

Within the context of a clinical trial, the results of quantitative MRI may be used to help determine if a patient is eligible to participate in the clinical trial. For example, the eligibility criteria in clinical trials investigating therapeutic agents to treat steatotic liver disease often include a liver PDFF above a certain threshold (typically 6–10%) at the beginning for the trial. Additionally, these same quantitative MRI measurements may also contribute to determining the safety and/or efficacy of the intervention being studied in the clinical trial. In the steatotic liver example, many clinical trials have an efficacy endpoint that is defined as the change over time in hepatic steatosis as measured by PDFF [71].

Phantoms have measurable value when used to ensure the optimal functionality of MRI systems and data integrity of scans. Cost is a significant factor in clinical trials as well as healthcare. Using phantoms to prospectively and preventively identify MRI acquisition errors limits the need to repeat patient imaging at later dates, mitigating associated costs and delays.

Facilitation of regulatory approvals

Whether primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoints, comprehensive phantom study data substantiate the claims presented during the regulatory approval process, thereby enhancing the credibility and acceptability of the data. Detailed documentation and results from phantom studies are critical evidence during regulatory submissions and reviews. This is true for both novel MRI methods and therapeutic agents. For example, phantom metrics for the measurement bias and repeatability were cited in the FDA 510(k) filing for Perspectum LiverMultiScan (LMSv3) [72]. Similarly, phantoms supported the FDA 510(k) filings for Siemens' LiverLab [73], Philips’ mDIXON-Quant [74] and GE Healthcare’s IDEAL IQ [75].

As regulatory support for new therapeutics and biomarkers is pursued, the deployment of phantoms allows for standardized benchmarking, enabling the systematic QC of MRI system performance across different studies, sites, timing, and therapeutic agents. The FDA has guidance for optimizing the quality of imaging data from clinical trials to support therapeutic agents [76] and for radiological devices that include quantitative imaging functions [77]. Both documents describe the use of phantoms to support the claims.

Case study: MASH clinical trials

In the field of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), MRI is a preferred clinical trial tool that can non-invasively measure liver fat (e.g., via PDFF) and fibrosis (e.g., via MRE) [78]. Although regulatory agencies require the use of a percutaneous liver biopsy in later stage clinical trials to determine efficacy, imaging may be used for this purpose through Phase IIa trials. In these imaging-based trials, phantoms that cover a wide range of PDFF values are used for site qualification, to assess protocol adherence, and for proactive identification of the need to rescan a patient. These phantoms can be scanned alone (for site qualification) or with a patient/participant during the clinical trial to help determine if the imaging was performed correctly.

Typically, image data collection issues are identified because the PDFF map has incorrect quantitative values in the phantom (Fig. 2). For example, the PDFF values may be out of range, which is identified based on the expected fat fraction values (and ranges) for each of the phantom vials. If during image review (or QC), the phantom values are out of range, the CRO will identify the root cause of the issue and provide feedback to the data collection site. The cause may be incorrectly acquired data due to poor shimming, inaccurate pre-scan, or issues with the phase correction baseline data. Acquisition issues are another possible source of error; these include incorrect flip angle, incorrect echo times, incorrect phase encoding direction, or the use of fat saturation.Fig. 2 Proton density fat fraction (PDFF) phantom scanned below a patient during a metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH) clinical trial. The nominal PDFF values are shown along with an inadequate acquisition followed by an adequate acquisition

Finally, image artifacts in both the acquisition and reconstruction may be identified using the phantom. One common artifact is motion, which can often occur in patients who are unable to hold their breath. It can be easier to identify the artifact in the phantom than in the participant. In the case of a fat/water swap, the swap is obvious in a phantom where there are expected fat content for different locations. Some scanners, under specific conditions, or in persons with low body fat, may swap fat/water in the qualification or patient scans and this needs to be corrected.

The use of phantoms to identify protocol errors and image artifacts enables conversations with imaging sites on the correctness of the protocol and data collection.

Value of phantoms for clinical quantitative body MRI

Both qualitative and quantitative phantoms are used in the clinic for the purposes of quantitative body MRI. In addition to the common uses, phantoms are used for development of protocols and mitigation of cost, which are detailed in the previous section on use for clinical trials. Here, we describe the use of phantoms in the clinic for quality control and radiotherapy.

Quality control

MRI phantoms are widely used for quality control in the clinic, which includes testing newly installed or revised MRI software or hardware and routine testing. Importantly, phantoms provide a consistent and reproducible environment for these tests, for optimizing imaging parameters, and for assessing newly installed sequences or equipment [37, 38]. Further, accreditation agencies such as the ACR in the United States mandate MRI phantom-based QC as part of their accreditation process of MRI procedures.

Several vendors include quantitative and qualitative phantoms as part of their body MRI product packages. For example, Resonance Health's FerriScan phantom is a specially designed quantitative phantom used to ensure the standardization and accuracy of the FerriScan R2 mapping protocol setup [79]. This phantom is essential for ensuring that FerriScan, developed for quantifying liver iron in MRI, provides minimally biased R2 values for quantifying liver iron concentration. Another example, a mixed-function MRE phantom provided by Resoundant, is used to verify that Resoundant’s MRE system is installed and functioning properly [61]. This includes qualitative evaluation, such as verifying the generation of shear waves, wave images, and elastograms, as well as longitudinal assessment of measurement reproducibility.

Radiotherapy treatment design and planning

Recently, MRI has been widely adopted in radiotherapy for treatment planning, primarily due to its superior image contrast, and phantoms are essential tools in this setting. Image distortions could introduce bias in tracking anatomies of interest. Lattice phantoms, which possess a regular and well-defined structure, have been developed for this purpose. These phantoms can assess image distortions caused by B0 inhomogeneity, gradient nonlinearity, and eddy currents that could impact radiotherapy planning [80–87]. Additionally, motion phantoms are increasingly used in the field of body radiotherapy. Similar to lattice phantoms, motion phantoms play a crucial role in evaluating the motion tracking characteristics of systems [25, 29, 31]. The performance of an MR-Linac system when treating moving targets was evaluated using a dynamic motion phantom, and results showed that the measured dosage accuracy was clinically acceptable [88]. Motion phantoms were also used to evaluate MRI of the liver on an MR-Linac [89].

Quantitative MRI methods can be paired with radiotherapy treatment to assess response to treatment and progression of disease [90]. As a result, phantoms have been used to measure the reproducibility of ADC on MR-Linac [91, 92] and MRI systems used by radiotherapy teams [48]. Given the necessity of phantoms for ensuring proper radiation dose, the MR-Linac community has readily adopted the use of phantoms for MRI measurements.

Phantoms for quantitative body MRI

Available phantoms

A selection of body phantoms that are either commercially available or have published designs can be seen in Table 1. These phantoms are designed for a wide range of applications across body MRI, and Table 1 is organized according to use. The phantoms have a variety of forms, both anthropomorphic and geometric, to be used alone or imaged with a patient. Phantoms that can be imaged with the participant add information as to whether the images were acquired correctly. Some of the included phantoms even accommodate simulated biopsies or subject motion. The selection of phantoms was assembled from the knowledge of the authors, as well as results from PubMed and Google Scholar searches for terms such as “Abdominal MRI Phantom”, “Body MRI Phantom”, “Prostate MRI Phantom”, “Liver MRI Phantom”, and “Geometric Accuracy Phantom MRI”.Table 1 A selection of body MRI phantoms that are either commercially available or have published designs

Category	Description	Designer	Form	Availability	Designed for	Citations	
Image Quality	Cylindrical, Image Quality Phantom [34]		Cylindrical	Commercial	Geometric distortion, resolution, slice thickness, image quality	5 + 	
Image Quality	Cylindrical Geometric Distortion Phantom [97]		Cylindrical	Commercial	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided radiation therapy	5 + 	
Image Quality	Rectangular Geometric Distortion Phantom [97]		Rectangular	Commercial	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided radiation therapy	5 + 	
Image Quality	Geometric Distortion Torso Phantom [98]		Torso	Commercial	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided radiation therapy	5 + 	
Image Quality	3D-Printed Grid Head Phantom [82]	Nousiainen and Mäkelä	Cylindrical	Published Description	Geometric distortion	1–2	
Image Quality	Planar Head Distortion Phantom [83]	Orth et al	Lattice	Published Description	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided surgery	0	
Image Quality	3D-Printed Grid Torso Phantom [84]	Ramachandran et al	Torso	Published Description	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided radiation therapy	0	
Image Quality	Modular Distortion Phantom [85]	Slagowski et al	Modular Blocks	Published Description	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided radiation therapy	0	
Image Quality	Rectangular Grid Distortion Phantom [86]	Wang et al	Rectangular	Published Description	Geometric distortion	1–2	
Image Quality	Rectangular Rod Distortion Phantom [87]	Yu et al	Rectangular	Published Description	Geometric distortion, MRI-guided surgery	1–2	
Interventional	Abdominal Phantom for Biopsy Practice [99]		Anthropomorphic, Biopsy	Commercial	MRI-guided biopsy	1–2	
Interventional	Abdominal MRI, CT, and US Phantom for Biopsy Practice [100]		Anthropomorphic, Biopsy	Commercial	MRI-guided biopsy, Image fusion	3–4	
Interventional	Phantom for Radiation Therapy QA and Motion Tests [95]		Anthropomorphic, Motion	Commercial	MRI-guided radiation therapy, motion compensation	5 + 	
Interventional	Phantom for Radiation Therapy Motion Tests [96]		Anthropomorphic, Motion	Commercial	MRI-guided radiation therapy	5 + 	
Interventional	MR-guided Focused Ultrasound Tumour Phantom [58]	Antoniou et al	Rectangular	Published Description	MRI-guided focused ultrasound	0	
Interventional	Interventional MRI, CT, and PET-CT Abdominal Phantom [70]	Bauer et al	Anthropomorphic	Published Description	MRI-guided biopsy	0	
Interventional	Liver Thermal Ablation Phantom [101]	Bazrafshan et al	Optical absorption, Liver	Published Description	MRI-guided thermal ablation	0	
Interventional	Low-cost Motion Phantom [31]	Chang et al	Rectangular, Motion	Published Description	MRI-guided radiotherapy, motion	0	
Interventional	Liver Respiratory Motion Phantom [29]	Geelhand de Merxem et al	Anthropomorphic Liver, Motion	Published Description	MRI-guided radiation therapy	0	
Interventional	Interventional Phantom for MRI/CT Fusion [57]	Johnston et al	Rectangular	Published Design	MRI-guided biopsy	0	
Interventional	Respiratory Liver Motion Phantom [32]	Maier-Hein et al	Anthropomorphic, Liver, Motion	Published Description	MRI-guided procedures	1–2	
Interventional	Flow Liver Phantom [28]	Rethy et al	Anthropomorphic, Liver, Flow	Published Description	MRI planning of laparoscopic ultrasound	0	
Interventional	Anthropomorphic Pelvic Phantom [102]	Singhrao et al	Anthropomorphic, Prostate	Published Description	MRI-guided radiation therapy	0	
Interventional	Geometric Pelvic Phantom [81]	Sun et al	Anthropomorphic, Prostate	Published Description	MRI-guided radiation therapy, distortion analysis	0	
Interventional	Dynamic Phantom with Heart, Lung, and Blood Motion for Initial Validation of MRI Techniques [26]	Swailes et al	Anthropomorphic, Motion	Published Description	Motion compensation, MR-guided procedures	0	
Interventional	Pelvic Distortion Phantom [80]	Tanner et al	Rectangular	Published Description	MRI-guided radiation therapy, distortion analysis	1–2	
Interventional	Abdominal Motion Phantom for MRI-guided Radiation Therapy [25]	Weidner et al	Anthropomorphic, Motion	Published Description	MRI-guided radiation therapy	0	
qMRI	Phantom for Quantitative MRI of the Prostate [103]		Anthropomorphic,

Prostate

	Commercial	T1, T2, diffusion	1–2	
qMRI	Phantom for Quantitative, Isotropic Diffusion [94]		Spherical	Commercial	Diffusion	5 + 	
qMRI	Phantoms for Quantitative PDFF, T1, T2, R2* MRI [60]		Spherical Housing-based (Stand-alone Imaging), Set of Cylinders (in-the-FOV Imaging under the Patient)	Commercial	PDFF, T1, T2, R2*	5 + 	
qMRI	Phantom for Shear Wave Live Fibrosis [104]		Cylindrical	Commercial	MRE	1–2	
qMRI	Phantom for Quantitative Breast MRI [66]	Keenan et al	Cylinders, Spheres	Commercial	T1, T2, diffusion, geometric distortion	5 + 	
qMRI	Spherical General Purpose Phantom [44]	Stupic et al	Spherical	Commercial	T1, T2, proton density, geometric distortion	5 + 	
qMRI	Phantom for R2* Quantification [79]		Vials	Commercial	R2*, Liver iron concentration	1–2	
qMRI	Phantom for MR Elastography [61]		Cylindrical	Commercial	MRE	1–2	
qMRI	Dynamic Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Phantom [55]	Ahmad et al	Anthropomorphic, Liver	Published Description	Dynamic contrast enhancement	0	
qMRI	Breast qMRI and Flow Phantom [22]	Basukala et al	Cylinders, Spheres	Published Description	T1, T2, diffusion, flow	0	
qMRI	Anthropomorphic Breast Phantom [65]	Freed et al	Anthropomorphic	Published Description	T1, T2	1–2	
qMRI	3D-printed Pancreas Motion Phantom [17]	Geng et al	Anthropomorphic, Motion	Published Description	Diffusion, motion	0	
qMRI	3D-printed Pulsatile Flow Liver Phantom [18]	Geng et al	Anthropomorphic, Liver, Flow	Published Description	Diffusion, blood-suppression	0	
qMRI	Fat–Water-SPIO Fat Fraction Phantom [93]	Hines et al	Vials	Published Description	PDFF	3–4	
qMRI	Fat–Water Phantom [14]	Hernando et al	Vials	Published Description	PDFF	1–2	
qMRI	Disposable Point‐of‐care Portable Perfusion Phantom (DP4) [20]	Holland et al	Rectangular	Published Design	Perfusion, quantitative dynamic contrast enhancement MRI	0	
qMRI	Linear Motion Phantom [30]	Jensen et al	Rectangular, Motion	Published Description	Cine phase contrast, strain	0	
qMRI	Point-of-care Portable Perfusion Phantom (P4) [19]	Kim et al	Rectangular	Published Design	Perfusion, quantitative dynamic contrast Enhancement MRI	1–2	
qMRI	DCE Prostate Phantom [105]	Knight et al	Anthropomorphic, Prostate	Published Description	Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI	1–2	
qMRI	Linear Respiratory Motion Diffusion Phantom [16]	Kwee et al	Motion	Published Description	Diffusion, motion	0	
qMRI	Collagen-Water-Fat-Gd R2* and Susceptibility Phantom [5]	Li et al	Rectangular	Published Description,	R2*, susceptibility	0	
qMRI	PDFF-CT Phantom [15]	Pickhardt et al	Cylindrical	Published Description	PDFF	0	
qMRI	Radiomics Phantom [53]	Rai et al	Spherical	Published Design	Radiomics	0	
qMRI	3D-printed ASL Perfusion Phantom [21]	Wang et al	Rectangular	Published Description	Perfusion	1–2	
qMRI	Abdominal Kidney QA Phantom [24]	Wolf et al	Anthropomorphic	Published Design	Conductivity, permittivity, T1, and T2	1–2	
qMRI	Hydrostatic Linear Motion Phantom [23]	Zhong et al	Vials, Motion	Published Description	R2*, motion	0	
In the “Description” column, the citation given is the first published description of the phantom or a representative use case if no published description is available. The “Citations” column reports approximate number of uses of the phantom found in the literature

Within a section of Table 1, the phantoms are organized by availability. In the “Availability” column, Commercial indicates that the phantom is available for sale. Published design indicates that a design with sufficient detail for the reader to build the phantom has been published in a peer-reviewed publication. Published description indicates that a design has been described in a peer-reviewed publication, but detailed information to build was not included. In the “Name” column, the citation given is the first published description of the phantom or a representative use case if no published description is available. The “Citations” column reports the approximate number of uses of the phantom found in a literature search from PubMed and Google Scholar, or, for some commercially available phantoms, the manufacturer website provided a list of citations.

Published descriptions have been replicated (e.g., Schneider et al. [13] used the description from Hines et al. [93]); however, commercially available phantoms have more literature citations than the published designs and published descriptions (Fig. 3). Commercially available phantoms with five or more citations include a spherical general purpose phantom for T1, T2, proton density and geometric distortion [44]; a quantitative breast phantom for T1, T2, diffusion and geometric distortion [66]; phantoms for quantitative PDFF, T1, T2, and R2* [14]; phantom for isotropic diffusion [94]; phantoms for radiation therapy motion tests [95, 96]; and a cylindrical image quality phantom for geometric distortion [34].Fig. 3 Frequency of phantom usage by phantom availability, as a percentage of the total phantoms in a category. Commercially available phantoms are the most widely used, and phantoms with published designs are more likely to be used than those with only descriptions

Limitations of current phantoms

The currently available phantoms have demonstrated value, as discussed throughout this paper. However, there are limitations of current phantoms that aim to mimic tissue properties, and it is important to understand both the capabilities and limitations of a given phantom.

Phantoms cannot replicate all the MRI-measurable properties of a tissue. For example, it is possible to make a phantom with a physiologically relevant range of T1 and T2 values, including the T1/T2 ratio. Thus far, though, it has not been possible to also represent the ADC in the same T1/T2 phantom. Another example comes from phantoms that mimic liver iron content. It is possible to make R2 phantoms or R2* phantoms. Although phantoms may have a relationship between R2 and R2* that mimics the iron-loaded liver, quantitatively this relationship is generally not the same as observed in vivo.

Quantitative properties and phantom materials can be temperature and field dependent, which can complicate the assessment of accuracy and reproducibility. Diffusion is a temperature dependent parameter, and it is necessary to measure temperature of the phantom during the imaging session. Thermometers can be included in phantoms for this purpose [106]. Relaxation properties of materials that are frequently used in phantoms, such as CuSO4, NiCl2, and MnCl2, vary with field and temperature, and not always in a straightforward manner [44]. As a result, it is important to characterize phantom materials across these conditions.

Finally, tissue relaxation properties are field dependent; the T1 and T2 or R2 and R2* values change with field strength, even between 1.5 and 3 T. Thus far, materials used in phantoms do not have the same field-dependent properties as tissue. For example, commonly used R2* phantoms are based on superparamagnetic iron oxides, where the magnetization is essentially saturated at 1.5 T, and therefore the R2* values are nearly the same between 1.5 and 3 T. In contrast, in vivo R2*, in the presence of liver iron overload, nearly doubles between 1.5 and 3 T.

Open questions about the use of phantoms

There are many open questions regarding the use of phantoms, in particular for routine use in the clinic. It is known that quantitative measurements change with software versions, pulse sequence changes and hardware changes [107–109]. However, the definition of “routine” in this case is unknown. We do not know when the phantom should be used or at what frequency the phantom measurements are necessary. It is surmised that the stability of a measurement should be tracked over time and deviations treated as a warning to look for root cause errors in the measurement specifications or changes in the measurement system. However, there is minimal literature on which to base recommendations.

For other imaging modalities, the use of phantoms is necessary and clear. Frequently there are recommended or required QC protocols that are used. For example, in any radiation-based method, a phantom is necessary to ensure accuracy of dose. In dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), quantitative phantoms are used for daily calibration to ensure that measured bone density (BMD) remains consistent over time [110]. Changes in these measured densities can be used to adjust patient bone densities to minimize the effect of longitudinal scanner variability. Within a multi-center clinical trial, it is also useful to reduce the variability of measurements between sites. This can be accomplished using a cross-site calibration phantom such as the Bona Fide Phantom [110]. By scanning the cross-site calibration phantom at each DXA imaging site, the measured values can be used to adjust the BMD of each participant to substantially reduce the variability observed between different DXA scanners. Cross-site calibration phantoms have also been used as part of an equipment replacement program to minimize equipment downtime [111].

The clinical trial and clinical imaging communities would benefit from clear directions on when to use quantitative MRI phantoms. Such directions would necessarily balance the time required and costs of QC with the benefit derived from making these measurements. Data are needed on the frequency and severity of errors in imaging studies and use of phantoms to identify or possibly correct these errors. Additionally, documentation of limited system downtime due to the use of MRI phantoms is needed. We call on the community to consider these questions when designing studies and publishing findings on the use of phantoms.

Conclusion

Phantoms for quantitative body MRI have been developed for many purposes and to address the multitude of needs of this community. These phantoms have clear and demonstrated value in MRI methods research, for clinical trials, and in the clinic. For example, phantoms are indispensable for limiting bias and validating the reproducibility of imaging data, which is necessary for validation of new imaging methods, for affirming the validity of findings in clinical trials, and for supporting data-driven decisions in the clinic. Additionally, phantoms are an invaluable tool for education and training of new methods, equipment, and protocols to reduce variances induced by operator error.

Phantoms are an essential part of quality management strategies, facilitating the conduct of ethically sound, reliable, and regulatorily compliant clinical research of both novel MRI methods and therapeutic agents. Sharing data and findings from phantom studies provides transparent communication with researchers, illustrating adherence to quality and consistency. This is particularly important when demonstrating a method is ready for translation to the clinic and necessary to secure regulatory clearance for commercial quantitative MRI. The strategic incorporation of phantoms in body MRI-focused clinical trials not only assures the qualitative and regulatory robustness of the trial but also supports the validity and reliability of the data, which is critical for decisions evaluating the safety and efficacy of investigational therapies.

To support further adoption of quantitative body MRI methods, we recommend that the community study and develop best practices for routine clinical use of phantoms.

Disclosures

Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper in order to specify the experimental procedure adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by NIST, nor is it intended to imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

D.H. is co-founder of Calimetrix.

Acknowledgements

NIST acknowledges research funding from the National Research Council Postdoctoral Fellowship.

S.E.O. would like to acknowledge support from NIST-PREP (Professional Research Experience Program), performed under the following financial assistance award 70NANB18H006 from U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

D.H. acknowledges support from the NIH (R01 EB030497, R01-EB031886, R44-EB025729).

Author contributions

KEK: Paper conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting of the manuscript, Critical revision. KVJ: Drafting of the manuscript, Critical revision. SEO: Acquisition of data, Drafting of the manuscript. DT: Acquisition of data, Drafting of the manuscript. NB: Acquisition of data, Critical revision. JS: Acquisition of data, Drafting of the manuscript. JR: Drafting of the manuscript, Critical revision. PJMC: Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting of the manuscript, Critical revision. DH: Paper conception and design, Critical revision.

Funding

National Institutes of Health, R01 EB030497, Diego Hernando, RO1 EB031886, Diego Hernando, R44 EB025729, Diego Hernando.

Data Availability

Data availability statement is not applicable.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

D.H. is a co-founder of Calimetrix. J.R. and P.J.MC. are employees of ICON, a clinical research organization. K.E.K., K.V.J., S.E.O., D.T., N.B. and J.S. authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Venkatesh SK Yin M Ehman RL Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications J Magn Reson Imaging 2013 37 3 544 555 10.1002/jmri.23731 23423795
Venkatesh SK, Yin M, Ehman RL (2013) Magnetic resonance elastography of liver: technique, analysis, and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 37(3):544–555. 10.1002/jmri.2373123423795
2. Reeder SB Cruite I Hamilton G Sirlin CB Quantitative assessment of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy J Magn Reson Imaging 2011 34 4 729 749 10.1002/jmri.22580 22025886
Reeder SB, Cruite I, Hamilton G, Sirlin CB (2011) Quantitative assessment of liver fat with magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(4):729–749. 10.1002/jmri.2258022025886
3. Turkbey B Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2 Eur Urol 2019 76 3 340 351 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033 30898406
Turkbey B et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76(3):340–351. 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.03330898406
4. Wright KL Chen Y Saybasili H Griswold MA Seiberlich N Gulani V Quantitative high-resolution renal perfusion imaging using 3-dimensional through-time radial generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition Invest Radiol 2014 49 10 666 674 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000070 24879298
Wright KL, Chen Y, Saybasili H, Griswold MA, Seiberlich N, Gulani V (2014) Quantitative high-resolution renal perfusion imaging using 3-dimensional through-time radial generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisition. Invest Radiol 49(10):666–674. 10.1097/RLI.000000000000007024879298
5. Li J Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) minimizes interference from cellular pathology in R2* estimation of liver iron concentration J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 2018 48 4 1069 1079 10.1002/jmri.26019 29566449
Li J et al (2018) Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping (QSM) minimizes interference from cellular pathology in R2* estimation of liver iron concentration. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 48(4):1069–1079. 10.1002/jmri.2601929566449
6. Pandharipande PV Krinsky GA Rusinek H Lee VS Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals Radiol 2005 234 3 661 673 10.1148/radiol.2343031362
Pandharipande PV, Krinsky GA, Rusinek H, Lee VS (2005) Perfusion imaging of the liver: current challenges and future goals. Radiol 234(3):661–673. 10.1148/radiol.2343031362
7. St Pierre TG Noninvasive measurement and imaging of liver iron concentrations using proton magnetic resonance Blood 2005 105 2 855 861 10.1182/blood-2004-01-0177 15256427
St Pierre TG et al (2005) Noninvasive measurement and imaging of liver iron concentrations using proton magnetic resonance. Blood 105(2):855–86115256427
8. Keenan KE Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging phantoms: a review and the need for a system phantom Magn Reson Med 2018 79 1 48 61 10.1002/mrm.26982 29083101
Keenan KE et al (2018) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging phantoms: a review and the need for a system phantom. Magn Reson Med 79(1):48–61. 10.1002/mrm.2698229083101
9. Bane O Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: results from a multicenter phantom study Magn Reson Med 2018 79 5 2564 2575 10.1002/mrm.26903 28913930
Bane O et al (2018) Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: results from a multicenter phantom study. Magn Reson Med 79(5):2564–2575. 10.1002/mrm.2690328913930
10. American College of Radiology, (2023) “Clinical Research.” Accessed: Oct. 31. [Online]. Available: https://www.acr.org/Research/Clinical-Research
11. Partridge SC Diffusion-weighted MRI findings predict pathologic response in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: the ACRIN 6698 multicenter trial Radiology 2018 289 3 618 627 10.1148/radiol.2018180273 30179110
Partridge SC et al (2018) Diffusion-weighted MRI findings predict pathologic response in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: the ACRIN 6698 multicenter trial. Radiology 289(3):618–627. 10.1148/radiol.201818027330179110
12. Chauvie S Mazzoni LN O’Doherty J A review on the use of imaging biomarkers in oncology clinical trials: quality assurance strategies for technical validation Tomography 2023 9 5 1876 1902 10.3390/tomography9050149 37888741
Chauvie S, Mazzoni LN, O’Doherty J (2023) A review on the use of imaging biomarkers in oncology clinical trials: quality assurance strategies for technical validation. Tomography 9(5):1876–1902. 10.3390/tomography905014937888741
13. Schneider E Remer EM Obuchowski NA McKenzie CA Ding X Navaneethan SD Long-term inter-platform reproducibility, bias, and linearity of commercial PDFF MRI methods for fat quantification: a multi-center, multi-vendor phantom study Eur Radiol 2021 31 10 7566 7574 10.1007/s00330-021-07851-8 33768291
Schneider E, Remer EM, Obuchowski NA, McKenzie CA, Ding X, Navaneethan SD (2021) Long-term inter-platform reproducibility, bias, and linearity of commercial PDFF MRI methods for fat quantification: a multi-center, multi-vendor phantom study. Eur Radiol 31(10):7566–7574. 10.1007/s00330-021-07851-833768291
14. Hernando D Multisite, multivendor validation of the accuracy and reproducibility of proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T using a fat-water phantom: proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T Magn Reson Med 2017 77 4 1516 1524 10.1002/mrm.26228 27080068
Hernando D et al (2017) Multisite, multivendor validation of the accuracy and reproducibility of proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T using a fat-water phantom: proton-density fat-fraction quantification at 1.5T and 3T. Magn Reson Med 77(4):1516–1524. 10.1002/mrm.2622827080068
15. Pickhardt PJ Graffy PM Reeder SB Hernando D Li K Quantification of liver fat content with unenhanced MDCT: phantom and clinical correlation with MRI proton density fat fraction Am J Roentgenol 2018 211 3 W151 W157 10.2214/AJR.17.19391 30016142
Pickhardt PJ, Graffy PM, Reeder SB, Hernando D, Li K (2018) Quantification of liver fat content with unenhanced MDCT: phantom and clinical correlation with MRI proton density fat fraction. Am J Roentgenol 211(3):W151–W157. 10.2214/AJR.17.1939130016142
16. Kwee TC Apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in a moving phantom simulating linear respiratory motion Jpn J Radiol 2010 28 8 578 583 10.1007/s11604-010-0476-3 20972857
Kwee TC et al (2010) Apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in a moving phantom simulating linear respiratory motion. Jpn J Radiol 28(8):578–583. 10.1007/s11604-010-0476-320972857
17. Geng R Characterization and correction of cardiovascular motion artifacts in diffusion-weighted imaging of the pancreas Magn Reson Med 2021 86 4 1956 1969 10.1002/mrm.28846 34142375
Geng R et al (2021) Characterization and correction of cardiovascular motion artifacts in diffusion-weighted imaging of the pancreas. Magn Reson Med 86(4):1956–1969. 10.1002/mrm.2884634142375
18. Geng R Motion-robust, blood-suppressed, reduced-distortion diffusion MRI of the liver Magn Reson Med 2023 89 3 908 921 10.1002/mrm.29531 36404637
Geng R et al (2023) Motion-robust, blood-suppressed, reduced-distortion diffusion MRI of the liver. Magn Reson Med 89(3):908–921. 10.1002/mrm.2953136404637
19. Kim H Portable perfusion phantom for quantitative DCE-MRI of the abdomen Med Phys 2017 44 10 5198 5209 10.1002/mp.12466 28692137
Kim H et al (2017) Portable perfusion phantom for quantitative DCE-MRI of the abdomen. Med Phys 44(10):5198–5209. 10.1002/mp.1246628692137
20. Holland MD Disposable point-of-care portable perfusion phantom for quantitative DCE-MRI Med Phys 2022 49 1 271 281 10.1002/mp.15372 34802148
Holland MD et al (2022) Disposable point-of-care portable perfusion phantom for quantitative DCE-MRI. Med Phys 49(1):271–281. 10.1002/mp.1537234802148
21. Wang Y A 3D-printed phantom for quality-controlled reproducibility measurements of arterial spin labeled perfusion Magn Reson Med 2023 91 819 827 10.1002/mrm.29886 37815014
Wang Y et al (2023) A 3D-printed phantom for quality-controlled reproducibility measurements of arterial spin labeled perfusion. Magn Reson Med 91:819–82737815014
22. Basukala D Multisite MRI Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Repeatability and Reproducibility across 3 T Scanners in a Breast Diffusion Phantom: a BReast Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Multisite (BRIMM) Study J Magn Reson Imaging 2023 59 2226 2237 10.1002/jmri.29008 37702382
Basukala D et al (2023) Multisite MRI Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Repeatability and Reproducibility across 3 T Scanners in a Breast Diffusion Phantom: a BReast Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Multisite (BRIMM) Study. J Magn Reson Imaging 59:2226–223737702382
23. Zhong X Free-breathing volumetric liver R2* and proton density fat fraction quantification in pediatric patients using stack-of-radial mri with self-gating motion compensation J Magn Reson Imaging 2021 53 1 118 129 10.1002/jmri.27205 32478915
Zhong X et al (2021) Free-breathing volumetric liver R2* and proton density fat fraction quantification in pediatric patients using stack-of-radial mri with self-gating motion compensation. J Magn Reson Imaging 53(1):118–129. 10.1002/jmri.2720532478915
24. Wolf M Reproducible phantom for quality assurance in abdominal MRI focussing kidney imaging Front Phys 2022 10 993241 10.3389/fphy.2022.993241
Wolf M et al (2022) Reproducible phantom for quality assurance in abdominal MRI focussing kidney imaging. Front Phys 10:993241. 10.3389/fphy.2022.993241
25. Weidner A An abdominal phantom with anthropomorphic organ motion and multimodal imaging contrast for MR-guided radiotherapy Phys Med Biol 2022 67 4 045009 10.1088/1361-6560/ac4ef8
Weidner A et al (2022) An abdominal phantom with anthropomorphic organ motion and multimodal imaging contrast for MR-guided radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 67(4):045009. 10.1088/1361-6560/ac4ef8
26. Swailes NE MacDonald ME Frayne R Dynamic phantom with heart, lung, and blood motion for initial validation of MRI techniques J Magn Reson Imaging 2011 34 4 941 946 10.1002/jmri.22688 21769980
Swailes NE, MacDonald ME, Frayne R (2011) Dynamic phantom with heart, lung, and blood motion for initial validation of MRI techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 34(4):941–946. 10.1002/jmri.2268821769980
27. Nofiele J An MRI-compatible platform for one-dimensional motion management studies in MRI: 1D Motion Management Platform for MRI Magn Reson Med 2016 76 2 702 712 10.1002/mrm.25903 26493684
Nofiele J et al (2016) An MRI-compatible platform for one-dimensional motion management studies in MRI: 1D Motion Management Platform for MRI. Magn Reson Med 76(2):702–712. 10.1002/mrm.2590326493684
28. Rethy A Anthropomorphic liver phantom with flow for multimodal image-guided liver therapy research and training Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2018 13 1 61 72 10.1007/s11548-017-1669-3 28929364
Rethy A et al (2018) Anthropomorphic liver phantom with flow for multimodal image-guided liver therapy research and training. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13(1):61–72. 10.1007/s11548-017-1669-328929364
29. A Geelhand De Merxem, V Lechien, T Thibault, D Dasnoy, B Macq (2017) “Design and implementation of a MRI compatible and dynamic phantom simulating the motion of a tumor in the liver under the breathing cycle,” in 13th International Conference on Medical Information Processing and Analysis, San Andres Island, Colombia: SPIE, p. 19. 10.1117/12.2285620.
30. Jensen ER Morrow DA Felmlee JP Odegard GM Kaufman KR Error analysis of cine phase contrast MRI velocity measurements used for strain calculation J Biomech 2015 48 1 95 103 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.035 25433567
Jensen ER, Morrow DA, Felmlee JP, Odegard GM, Kaufman KR (2015) Error analysis of cine phase contrast MRI velocity measurements used for strain calculation. J Biomech 48(1):95–103. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.03525433567
31. Chang Z Cai J Wang Z Yin F-F Evaluation of motion measurement using cine MRI for image guided stereotactic body radiotherapy on a new phantom platform J Radiosurgery SBRT 2011 1 2 109 115
Chang Z, Cai J, Wang Z, Yin F-F (2011) Evaluation of motion measurement using cine MRI for image guided stereotactic body radiotherapy on a new phantom platform. J Radiosurgery SBRT 1(2):109–115
32. Maier-Hein L Respiratory liver motion simulator for validating image-guided systems ex-vivo Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2008 2 5 287 292 10.1007/s11548-007-0140-2
Maier-Hein L et al (2008) Respiratory liver motion simulator for validating image-guided systems ex-vivo. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2(5):287–292. 10.1007/s11548-007-0140-2
33. R Price et al., (2015) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Quality Control Manual
34. ACR, “Large and Medium Phantom Test Guidance for the ACR MRI Accreditation Program.” Oct. 19, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://accreditationsupport.acr.org/helpdesk/attachments/11093487417
35. ACR, “Testing Overview: MRI (Revised 8–4–2023),” Accreditation Support. Accessed: Oct. 26, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://accreditationsupport.acr.org/support/solutions/articles/11000061018-testing-overview-mri-revised-8-4-2023-
36. Chen C-C Wan Y-L Wai Y-Y Liu H-L Quality assurance of clinical MRI scanners using ACR MRI phantom: preliminary results J Digit Imaging 2004 17 4 279 284 10.1007/s10278-004-1023-5 15692871
Chen C-C, Wan Y-L, Wai Y-Y, Liu H-L (2004) Quality assurance of clinical MRI scanners using ACR MRI phantom: preliminary results. J Digit Imaging 17(4):279–284. 10.1007/s10278-004-1023-515692871
37. European Society of Radiology, “Esperanto ESR Guide to Clinical Audit in Radiology, 3rd Edition.” Accessed: Nov. 30, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.myesr.org/app/uploads/2023/08/Esperanto-ESR-Guide-to-Clinical-Audit-in-Radiology-3rd-Edition.pdf
38. European Society of Radiology ESR statement on the validation of imaging biomarkers Insights Imaging 2020 11 1 76 10.1186/s13244-020-00872-9 32500316
European Society of Radiology (2020) ESR statement on the validation of imaging biomarkers. Insights Imaging 11(1):76. 10.1186/s13244-020-00872-932500316
39. RSNA, “Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance.” Accessed: Oct. 26, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.rsna.org/research/quantitative-imaging-biomarkers-alliance
40. Sullivan DC Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers Radiology 2015 277 3 813 825 10.1148/radiol.2015142202 26267831
Sullivan DC et al (2015) Metrology standards for quantitative imaging biomarkers. Radiology 277(3):813–825. 10.1148/radiol.201514220226267831
41. Raunig DL Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment Stat Methods Med Res 2015 24 1 27 67 10.1177/0962280214537344 24919831
Raunig DL et al (2015) Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment. Stat Methods Med Res 24(1):27–67. 10.1177/096228021453734424919831
42. Carr ME Keenan KE Rai R Metcalfe P Walker A Holloway L Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T 1 and T 2 in a 3T MRI scanner J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021 22 11 143 150 10.1002/acm2.13432 34562341
Carr ME, Keenan KE, Rai R, Metcalfe P, Walker A, Holloway L (2021) Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T 1 and T 2 in a 3T MRI scanner. J Appl Clin Med Phys 22(11):143–150. 10.1002/acm2.1343234562341
43. Hu HH Linearity and bias of proton density fat fraction as a quantitative imaging biomarker: a multicenter, multiplatform, multivendor phantom study Radiology 2021 298 3 640 651 10.1148/radiol.2021202912 33464181
Hu HH et al (2021) Linearity and bias of proton density fat fraction as a quantitative imaging biomarker: a multicenter, multiplatform, multivendor phantom study. Radiology 298(3):640–651. 10.1148/radiol.202120291233464181
44. Stupic KF A standard system phantom for magnetic resonance imaging Magn Reson Med 2021 86 3 1194 1211 10.1002/mrm.28779 33847012
Stupic KF et al (2021) A standard system phantom for magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 86(3):1194–1211. 10.1002/mrm.2877933847012
45. Sorace AG Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting J Magn Reson Imaging 2018 48 3 695 707 10.1002/jmri.26011
Sorace AG et al (2018) Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting. J Magn Reson Imaging 48(3):695–707. 10.1002/jmri.26011
46. Bachtiar V Repeatability and reproducibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the liver PLoS ONE 2019 14 4 e0214921 10.1371/journal.pone.0214921 30970039
Bachtiar V et al (2019) Repeatability and reproducibility of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. PLoS ONE 14(4):e0214921. 10.1371/journal.pone.021492130970039
47. Wang Y Quantitative MRI: defining repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy for prostate cancer imaging biomarker development Magn Reson Imaging 2021 77 169 179 10.1016/j.mri.2020.12.018 33388362
Wang Y et al (2021) Quantitative MRI: defining repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy for prostate cancer imaging biomarker development. Magn Reson Imaging 77:169–179. 10.1016/j.mri.2020.12.01833388362
48. Carr ME Conformance of a 3T radiotherapy MRI scanner to the QIBA diffusion profile Med Phys 2022 49 7 4508 4517 10.1002/mp.15645 35365884
Carr ME et al (2022) Conformance of a 3T radiotherapy MRI scanner to the QIBA diffusion profile. Med Phys 49(7):4508–4517. 10.1002/mp.1564535365884
49. Fang LK Keenan KE Carl M Ojeda-Fournier H Rodríguez-Soto AE Rakow-Penner RA Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility across 3 T scanners in a breast diffusion phantom J Magn Reson Imaging 2023 57 3 812 823 10.1002/jmri.28355 36029225
Fang LK, Keenan KE, Carl M, Ojeda-Fournier H, Rodríguez-Soto AE, Rakow-Penner RA (2023) Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility across 3 T scanners in a breast diffusion phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 57(3):812–823. 10.1002/jmri.2835536029225
50. Hernando D Multicenter reproducibility of liver iron quantification with 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI Radiology 2023 306 2 e213256 10.1148/radiol.213256 36194113
Hernando D et al (2023) Multicenter reproducibility of liver iron quantification with 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI. Radiology 306(2):e21325636194113
51. Lo W Multicenter repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting in phantoms and in prostatic tissue Magn Reson Med 2022 88 4 1818 1827 10.1002/mrm.29264 35713379
Lo W et al (2022) Multicenter repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting in phantoms and in prostatic tissue. Magn Reson Med 88(4):1818–1827. 10.1002/mrm.2926435713379
52. Michoux NF Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study Eur Radiol 2021 31 7 4514 4527 10.1007/s00330-020-07522-0 33409773
Michoux NF et al (2021) Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study. Eur Radiol 31(7):4514–4527. 10.1007/s00330-020-07522-033409773
53. Rai R Multicenter evaluation of MRI-based radiomic features: a phantom study Med Phys 2020 47 7 3054 3063 10.1002/mp.14173 32277703
Rai R et al (2020) Multicenter evaluation of MRI-based radiomic features: a phantom study. Med Phys 47(7):3054–3063. 10.1002/mp.1417332277703
54. Reeder SB Kimbrell V Owman T Steckner M Calamante F on behalf of the ISMRM Safety Committee Guidelines for documentation and consent for nonclinical, nonresearch MRI in human subjects: Guidelines for Documentation and Consent J Magn Reson Imaging 2017 45 1 36 41 10.1002/jmri.25333 27312969
Reeder SB, Kimbrell V, Owman T, Steckner M, Calamante F, on behalf of the ISMRM Safety Committee (2017) Guidelines for documentation and consent for nonclinical, nonresearch MRI in human subjects: Guidelines for Documentation and Consent. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(1):36–4127312969
55. Ahmad MS Hepatocellular carcinoma liver dynamic phantom for MRI Radiat Phys Chem 2021 188 109632 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109632
Ahmad MS et al (2021) Hepatocellular carcinoma liver dynamic phantom for MRI. Radiat Phys Chem 188:109632. 10.1016/j.radphyschem.2021.109632
56. Wang C Yin F-F Segars WP Chang Z Ren L Development of a computerized 4-D MRI phantom for liver motion study Technol Cancer Res Treat 2017 16 6 1051 1059 10.1177/1533034617723753 28789598
Wang C, Yin F-F, Segars WP, Chang Z, Ren L (2017) Development of a computerized 4-D MRI phantom for liver motion study. Technol Cancer Res Treat 16(6):1051–1059. 10.1177/153303461772375328789598
57. Johnston EW Developing and testing a robotic MRI/CT fusion biopsy technique using a purpose-built interventional phantom Eur Radiol Exp 2022 6 1 55 10.1186/s41747-022-00308-7 36411379
Johnston EW et al (2022) Developing and testing a robotic MRI/CT fusion biopsy technique using a purpose-built interventional phantom. Eur Radiol Exp 6(1):55. 10.1186/s41747-022-00308-736411379
58. Antoniou A Evripidou N Georgiou L Chrysanthou A Ioannides C Damianou C Tumor phantom model for MRI-guided focused ultrasound ablation studies Med Phys 2023 50 10 5956 5968 10.1002/mp.16480 37226334
Antoniou A, Evripidou N, Georgiou L, Chrysanthou A, Ioannides C, Damianou C (2023) Tumor phantom model for MRI-guided focused ultrasound ablation studies. Med Phys 50(10):5956–5968. 10.1002/mp.1648037226334
59. Chenevert TL Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling Transl Oncol 2014 7 1 65 71 10.1593/tlo.13811 24772209
Chenevert TL et al (2014) Errors in quantitative image analysis due to platform-dependent image scaling. Transl Oncol 7(1):65–71. 10.1593/tlo.1381124772209
60. Zhao R Hamilton G Brittain JH Reeder SB Hernando D Design and evaluation of quantitative MRI phantoms to mimic the simultaneous presence of fat, iron, and fibrosis in the liver Magn Reson Med 2021 85 2 734 747 10.1002/mrm.28452 32783200
Zhao R, Hamilton G, Brittain JH, Reeder SB, Hernando D (2021) Design and evaluation of quantitative MRI phantoms to mimic the simultaneous presence of fat, iron, and fibrosis in the liver. Magn Reson Med 85(2):734–747. 10.1002/mrm.2845232783200
61. Pepin KM Welle CL Guglielmo FF Dillman JR Venkatesh SK Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: everything you need to know to get started Abdom Radiol 2022 47 1 94 114 10.1007/s00261-021-03324-0
Pepin KM, Welle CL, Guglielmo FF, Dillman JR, Venkatesh SK (2022) Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: everything you need to know to get started. Abdom Radiol 47(1):94–114. 10.1007/s00261-021-03324-0
62. Fedorov A Vangel MG Tempany CM Fennessy FM Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: repeatability of volume and apparent diffusion coefficient quantification Invest Radiol 2017 52 9 538 546 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000382 28463931
Fedorov A, Vangel MG, Tempany CM, Fennessy FM (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: repeatability of volume and apparent diffusion coefficient quantification. Invest Radiol 52(9):538–546. 10.1097/RLI.000000000000038228463931
63. Schwier M Repeatability of multiparametric prostate MRI radiomics features Sci Rep 2019 9 1 9441 10.1038/s41598-019-45766-z 31263116
Schwier M et al (2019) Repeatability of multiparametric prostate MRI radiomics features. Sci Rep 9(1):9441. 10.1038/s41598-019-45766-z31263116
64. Lu H Repeatability of quantitative imaging features in prostate magnetic resonance imaging Front Oncol 2020 10 551 10.3389/fonc.2020.00551 32457827
Lu H et al (2020) Repeatability of quantitative imaging features in prostate magnetic resonance imaging. Front Oncol 10:551. 10.3389/fonc.2020.0055132457827
65. Freed M An anthropomorphic phantom for quantitative evaluation of breast MRI Med Phys 2011 38 2 743 753 10.1118/1.3533899 21452712
Freed M et al (2011) An anthropomorphic phantom for quantitative evaluation of breast MRI. Med Phys 38(2):743–753. 10.1118/1.353389921452712
66. Keenan KE Design of a breast phantom for quantitative MRI J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 2016 44 3 610 619 10.1002/jmri.25214 26949897
Keenan KE et al (2016) Design of a breast phantom for quantitative MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging JMRI 44(3):610–619. 10.1002/jmri.2521426949897
67. Lo W Realistic 4D MRI abdominal phantom for the evaluation and comparison of acquisition and reconstruction techniques Magn Reson Med 2019 81 3 1863 1875 10.1002/mrm.27545 30394573
Lo W et al (2019) Realistic 4D MRI abdominal phantom for the evaluation and comparison of acquisition and reconstruction techniques. Magn Reson Med 81(3):1863–1875. 10.1002/mrm.2754530394573
68. Tavallaei MA Johnson PM Liu J Drangova M Design and evaluation of an MRI-compatible linear motion stage: MRI-compatible linear motion stage Med Phys 2015 43 1 62 71 10.1118/1.4937780
Tavallaei MA, Johnson PM, Liu J, Drangova M (2015) Design and evaluation of an MRI-compatible linear motion stage: MRI-compatible linear motion stage. Med Phys 43(1):62–71. 10.1118/1.4937780
69. Vali A Development of a rotation phantom for phase contrast MRI sequence validation and quality control Magn Reson Med 2020 84 6 3333 3341 10.1002/mrm.28343 32573806
Vali A et al (2020) Development of a rotation phantom for phase contrast MRI sequence validation and quality control. Magn Reson Med 84(6):3333–3341. 10.1002/mrm.2834332573806
70. Bauer DF Development of an abdominal phantom for the validation of an oligometastatic disease diagnosis workflow Med Phys 2022 49 7 4445 4454 10.1002/mp.15701 35510908
Bauer DF et al (2022) Development of an abdominal phantom for the validation of an oligometastatic disease diagnosis workflow. Med Phys 49(7):4445–4454. 10.1002/mp.1570135510908
71. Harrison SA Resmetirom for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial Nat Med 2023 29 11 2919 2928 10.1038/s41591-023-02603-1 37845512
Harrison SA et al (2023) Resmetirom for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Nat Med 29(11):2919–2928. 10.1038/s41591-023-02603-137845512
72. Perspectum Diagnostics Ltd, “LiverMultiScan 510(k).” [Online]. Available: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf19/K190017.pdf
73. Siemens, (2011) “Software syngo MR E11A for the MAGNETOM systems Aera/Skyra 510(k).” [Online]. Available: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf14/K141977.pdf
74. Philips, “mDIXON-Quant 510(k).” (2014) [Online]. Available: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf13/K133526.pdf
75. GE Healthcare, “IDEAL IQ 510(k).” [Online]. Available: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf10/K103411.pdf
76. Food and Drug Administration, (2018) “Clinical Trial Imaging Endpoint Process Standards Guidance for Industry.” [Online]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/media/81172/download
77. Food and Drug Administration, (2022) “Technical Performance Assessment of Quantitative Imaging in Radiological Device Premarket Submissions,” [Online]. Available: https://www.fda.gov/media/123271/download
78. Loomba R MRI-proton density fat fraction treatment response criteria in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis Hepatology 2021 73 3 881 883 10.1002/hep.31624 33179266
Loomba R (2021) MRI-proton density fat fraction treatment response criteria in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Hepatology 73(3):881–883. 10.1002/hep.3162433179266
79. Chan WC Tejani Z Budhani F Massey C Haider MA R2* as a surrogate measure of ferriscan iron quantification in thalassemia J Magn Reson Imaging 2014 39 4 1007 1011 10.1002/jmri.24216 24123694
Chan WC, Tejani Z, Budhani F, Massey C, Haider MA (2014) R2* as a surrogate measure of ferriscan iron quantification in thalassemia. J Magn Reson Imaging 39(4):1007–1011. 10.1002/jmri.2421624123694
80. Tanner SF Finnigan DJ Khoo VS Mayles P Dearnaley DP Leach MO Radiotherapy planning of the pelvis using distortion corrected MR images: the removal of system distortions Phys Med Biol 2000 45 8 2117 2132 10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/305 10958184
Tanner SF, Finnigan DJ, Khoo VS, Mayles P, Dearnaley DP, Leach MO (2000) Radiotherapy planning of the pelvis using distortion corrected MR images: the removal of system distortions. Phys Med Biol 45(8):2117–2132. 10.1088/0031-9155/45/8/30510958184
81. Sun J MRI simulation: end-to-end testing for prostate radiation therapy using geometric pelvic MRI phantoms Phys Med Biol 2015 60 8 3097 3109 10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/3097 25803177
Sun J et al (2015) MRI simulation: end-to-end testing for prostate radiation therapy using geometric pelvic MRI phantoms. Phys Med Biol 60(8):3097–3109. 10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/309725803177
82. Nousiainen K Mäkelä T Measuring geometric accuracy in magnetic resonance imaging with 3D-printed phantom and nonrigid image registration Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med 2020 33 3 401 410 10.1007/s10334-019-00788-6
Nousiainen K, Mäkelä T (2020) Measuring geometric accuracy in magnetic resonance imaging with 3D-printed phantom and nonrigid image registration. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med 33(3):401–410. 10.1007/s10334-019-00788-6
83. Orth RC Development of a unique phantom to assess the geometric accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for stereotactic localization Neurosurgery 1999 45 6 1423 10.1097/00006123-199912000-00030 10598710
Orth RC et al (1999) Development of a unique phantom to assess the geometric accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for stereotactic localization. Neurosurgery 45(6):142310598710
84. Ramachandran P A 3D printed phantom to assess MRI geometric distortion Biomed Phys Eng Express 2021 7 3 035004 10.1088/2057-1976/abeb7e
Ramachandran P et al (2021) A 3D printed phantom to assess MRI geometric distortion. Biomed Phys Eng Express 7(3):035004. 10.1088/2057-1976/abeb7e
85. Slagowski JM A modular phantom and software to characterize 3D geometric distortion in MRI Phys Med Biol 2020 65 19 195008 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9c64 32531763
Slagowski JM et al (2020) A modular phantom and software to characterize 3D geometric distortion in MRI. Phys Med Biol 65(19):195008. 10.1088/1361-6560/ab9c6432531763
86. Wang D Doddrell DM Cowin G A novel phantom and method for comprehensive 3-dimensional measurement and correction of geometric distortion in magnetic resonance imaging Magn Reson Imaging 2004 22 4 529 542 10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.008 15120173
Wang D, Doddrell DM, Cowin G (2004) A novel phantom and method for comprehensive 3-dimensional measurement and correction of geometric distortion in magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 22(4):529–542. 10.1016/j.mri.2004.01.00815120173
87. Yu C Petrovich Z Apuzzo ML Luxton G An image fusion study of the geometric accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging with the Leksell stereotactic localization system J Appl Clin Med Phys 2001 2 1 42 50 10.1120/jacmp.v2i1.2627 11674837
Yu C, Petrovich Z, Apuzzo ML, Luxton G (2001) An image fusion study of the geometric accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging with the Leksell stereotactic localization system. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2(1):42–50. 10.1120/jacmp.v2i1.262711674837
88. Liu X Technical Note: end-to-end verification of an MR-Linac using a dynamic motion phantom Med Phys 2021 48 9 5479 5489 10.1002/mp.15057 34174099
Liu X et al (2021) Technical Note: end-to-end verification of an MR-Linac using a dynamic motion phantom. Med Phys 48(9):5479–5489. 10.1002/mp.1505734174099
89. Van De Lindt TN Validation of a 4D-MRI guided liver stereotactic body radiation therapy strategy for implementation on the MR-linac Phys Med Biol 2021 66 10 105010 10.1088/1361-6560/abfada
Van De Lindt TN et al (2021) Validation of a 4D-MRI guided liver stereotactic body radiation therapy strategy for implementation on the MR-linac. Phys Med Biol 66(10):105010. 10.1088/1361-6560/abfada
90. Kooreman ES Feasibility and accuracy of quantitative imaging on a 1.5 T MR-linear accelerator Radiother Oncol 2019 133 156 162 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.01.011 30935572
Kooreman ES et al (2019) Feasibility and accuracy of quantitative imaging on a 1.5 T MR-linear accelerator. Radiother Oncol 133:156–162. 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.01.01130935572
91. Yang Y Longitudinal diffusion MRI for treatment response assessment: preliminary experience using an MRI-guided tri-cobalt 60 radiotherapy system Med Phys 2016 43 3 1369 1373 10.1118/1.4942381 26936721
Yang Y et al (2016) Longitudinal diffusion MRI for treatment response assessment: preliminary experience using an MRI-guided tri-cobalt 60 radiotherapy system. Med Phys 43(3):1369–1373. 10.1118/1.494238126936721
92. McDonald BA Prospective evaluation of in vivo and phantom repeatability and reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI sequences on 1.5 T MRI-linear accelerator (MR-Linac) and MR simulator devices for head and neck cancers Radiother Oncol 2023 185 109717 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.109717 37211282
McDonald BA et al (2023) Prospective evaluation of in vivo and phantom repeatability and reproducibility of diffusion-weighted MRI sequences on 1.5 T MRI-linear accelerator (MR-Linac) and MR simulator devices for head and neck cancers. Radiother Oncol 185:109717. 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.10971737211282
93. Hines CDG Yu H Shimakawa A McKenzie CA Brittain JH Reeder SB T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat-water-SPIO phantom J Magn Reson Imaging 2009 30 5 1215 1222 10.1002/jmri.21957 19856457
Hines CDG, Yu H, Shimakawa A, McKenzie CA, Brittain JH, Reeder SB (2009) T1 independent, T2* corrected MRI with accurate spectral modeling for quantification of fat: validation in a fat-water-SPIO phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 30(5):1215–1222. 10.1002/jmri.2195719856457
94. Paquier Z Pre-trial quality assurance of diffusion-weighted MRI for radiomic analysis and the role of harmonisation Phys Med 2022 103 138 146 10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.10.009 36308999
Paquier Z et al (2022) Pre-trial quality assurance of diffusion-weighted MRI for radiomic analysis and the role of harmonisation. Phys Med 103:138–146. 10.1016/j.ejmp.2022.10.00936308999
95. Lamb JM Dosimetric validation of a magnetic resonance image gated radiotherapy system using a motion phantom and radiochromic film J Appl Clin Med Phys 2017 18 3 163 169 10.1002/acm2.12088 28436094
Lamb JM et al (2017) Dosimetric validation of a magnetic resonance image gated radiotherapy system using a motion phantom and radiochromic film. J Appl Clin Med Phys 18(3):163–169. 10.1002/acm2.1208828436094
96. Kim T Lewis B Lotey R Barberi E Green O Clinical experience of MRI 4D QUASAR motion phantom for latency measurements in 0.35T MR-LINAC J Appl Clin Med Phys 2021 22 1 128 136 10.1002/acm2.13118 33336884
Kim T, Lewis B, Lotey R, Barberi E, Green O (2021) Clinical experience of MRI 4D QUASAR motion phantom for latency measurements in 0.35T MR-LINAC. J Appl Clin Med Phys 22(1):128–136. 10.1002/acm2.1311833336884
97. Taghizadeh S Optimizing MRI sequences and images for MRI-based stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 2019 24 1 12 19 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.09.010 30337843
Taghizadeh S et al (2019) Optimizing MRI sequences and images for MRI-based stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother 24(1):12–19. 10.1016/j.rpor.2018.09.01030337843
98. Wyatt J Evaluating the repeatability and set-up sensitivity of a large field of view distortion phantom and software for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 2018 6 31 38 10.1016/j.phro.2018.04.005 33458386
Wyatt J et al (2018) Evaluating the repeatability and set-up sensitivity of a large field of view distortion phantom and software for magnetic resonance-only radiotherapy. Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol 6:31–38. 10.1016/j.phro.2018.04.00533458386
99. X Liu K Tuncali WM Wells PR Morrison GP Zientara (2012) “Fully automatic 3D segmentation of iceball for image-guided cryoablation”, in, 2012 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society San Diego, CA: IEEE, 2327 2330 10.1109/EMBC.2012.6346429
100. Hong J Interventional navigation for abdominal therapy based on simultaneous use of MRI and ultrasound Med Biol Eng Comput 2006 44 12 1127 1134 10.1007/s11517-006-0133-2 17102954
Hong J et al (2006) Interventional navigation for abdominal therapy based on simultaneous use of MRI and ultrasound. Med Biol Eng Comput 44(12):1127–1134. 10.1007/s11517-006-0133-217102954
101. Bazrafshan B A liver-mimicking MRI phantom for thermal ablation experiments: liver-mimicking MRI phantom Med Phys 2011 38 5 2674 2684 10.1118/1.3570577 21776804
Bazrafshan B et al (2011) A liver-mimicking MRI phantom for thermal ablation experiments: liver-mimicking MRI phantom. Med Phys 38(5):2674–2684. 10.1118/1.357057721776804
102. Singhrao K A novel anthropomorphic multimodality phantom for MRI-based radiotherapy quality assurance testing Med Phys 2020 47 4 1443 1451 10.1002/mp.14027 31954078
Singhrao K et al (2020) A novel anthropomorphic multimodality phantom for MRI-based radiotherapy quality assurance testing. Med Phys 47(4):1443–1451. 10.1002/mp.1402731954078
103. RM Kalmoe, E Mirowski, GJ Metzger (2018) “Body Phantom with Prostate Mimic for Evaluation of Quantitative MRI,” presented at the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Accessed: Oct. 27, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://cds.ismrm.org/protected/18MProceedings/PDFfiles/2762.html
104. Zeng Q Three-Dimensional Multi-Frequency Shear Wave Absolute Vibro-Elastography (3D S-WAVE) with a matrix array transducer: implementation and preliminary In Vivo study of the liver IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2021 40 2 648 660 10.1109/TMI.2020.3034065 33108283
Zeng Q et al (2021) Three-Dimensional Multi-Frequency Shear Wave Absolute Vibro-Elastography (3D S-WAVE) with a matrix array transducer: implementation and preliminary In Vivo study of the liver. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 40(2):648–660. 10.1109/TMI.2020.303406533108283
105. Knight SP Browne JE Meaney JFM Fagan AJ Quantitative effects of acquisition duration and temporal resolution on the measurement accuracy of prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data: a phantom study Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med 2017 30 5 461 471 10.1007/s10334-017-0619-y
Knight SP, Browne JE, Meaney JFM, Fagan AJ (2017) Quantitative effects of acquisition duration and temporal resolution on the measurement accuracy of prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data: a phantom study. Magn Reson Mater Phys Biol Med 30(5):461–471. 10.1007/s10334-017-0619-y
106. E Mirowski, M Snow, KE Keenan (2020) “Liquid crystal thermometer for MRI,” US10809331B2
107. Keenan KE Multi-site, multi-platform comparison of MRI T1 measurement using the system phantom PLoS ONE 2021 16 6 e0252966 10.1371/journal.pone.0252966 34191819
Keenan KE et al (2021) Multi-site, multi-platform comparison of MRI T1 measurement using the system phantom. PLoS ONE 16(6):e0252966. 10.1371/journal.pone.025296634191819
108. Keenan KE Gimbutas Z Dienstfrey A Stupic KF Assessing effects of scanner upgrades for clinical studies J Magn Reson Imaging 2019 50 6 1948 1954 10.1002/jmri.26785 31111981
Keenan KE, Gimbutas Z, Dienstfrey A, Stupic KF (2019) Assessing effects of scanner upgrades for clinical studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 50(6):1948–1954. 10.1002/jmri.2678531111981
109. Lee Y Callaghan MF Acosta-Cabronero J Lutti A Nagy Z Establishing intra- and inter-vendor reproducibility of T 1 relaxation time measurements with 3T MRI Magn Reson Med 2019 81 1 454 465 10.1002/mrm.27421 30159953
Lee Y, Callaghan MF, Acosta-Cabronero J, Lutti A, Nagy Z (2019) Establishing intra- and inter-vendor reproducibility of T 1 relaxation time measurements with 3T MRI. Magn Reson Med 81(1):454–465. 10.1002/mrm.2742130159953
110. Faulkner KG McClung MR Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials Osteoporos Int 1995 5 4 218 227 10.1007/BF01774010 7492859
Faulkner KG, McClung MR (1995) Quality control of DXA instruments in multicenter trials. Osteoporos Int 5(4):218–227. 10.1007/BF017740107492859
111. Pearson D Horton B Green DJ Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program J Clin Densitom 2006 9 3 287 294 10.1016/j.jocd.2006.02.006 16931346
Pearson D, Horton B, Green DJ (2006) Cross calibration of DXA as part of an equipment replacement program. J Clin Densitom 9(3):287–294. 10.1016/j.jocd.2006.02.00616931346
