Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition
9 May 2026 – 14 May 2026 · Cape Town, South Africa
462-06-005 ISMRM Abstract

Quantifying MRI Sequence-Specific Distortion in a Breast Phantom via CT Co-Registration and Susceptibility Simulation

Primary: Physics & Engineering - Phantoms
Secondary: Body - Breast
462-06-005 · Breast MRI: Technical Developments · Tuesday, 12 May, 4:55 PM–5:50 PM · Digital Posters Row C
Keywords: Phantoms Susceptibility 3D-Printing Quantitative MRI Geometric distortions
Accepted
Klara Mišak 1,2,3, Agnieszka Sierhej2,3, Chris A Clark2, Kelley Ferreira3, Sienna Griffin-Shaw4, Felix Roberts4, David Roddy3, Simon Walker-Samuel5, Matt Cashmore3
1Department of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, United Kingdom
2Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom
3National Physical Laboratory, London, United Kingdom
4The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL, London, United Kingdom
5Centre for Computational Imaging, UCL, London, United Kingdom
Presenting Author: Klara Mišak

Synopsis

Motivation:
Goals:
Approach:
Results:
Full abstract & presentation

The full text, figures, and any recorded presentation for this abstract are not shown here. Log in if you are a member or registered attendee with access.

Full abstracts, figures, and presentations for Cape Town - 2026 ISMRM-ISMRT Annual Meeting and Exhibition are available to registered attendees. This content becomes freely available to the public roughly two years after the meeting.

To request or purchase access, contact the ISMRM Central Office at info@ismrm.org.

Log in

References

1. Galati, F., Rizzo, V., Trimboli, R. M., Kripa, E., Maroncelli, R., & Pediconi, F. (2022). MRI as a biomarker for breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis. BJR open, 4(1), 20220002. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjro.20220002 [doi]
2. Keenan, K. E., Wilmes, L. J., Aliu, S. O., Newitt, D. C., Jones, E. F., Boss, M. A., Stupic, K. F., Russek, S. E., & Hylton, N. M. (2016). Design of a breast phantom for quantitative MRI. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 44(3), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25214 [doi]
3. M. J. Burfeindt et al., "MRI-Derived 3-D-Printed Breast Phantom for Microwave Breast Imaging Validation," in IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters, vol. 11, pp. 1610-1613, 2012, doi: 10.1109/LAWP.2012.2236293. [doi]
4. Mišak, K. et al., Evaluating the Stability and MRI Relaxation Properties of Alginate for Breast Phantom Development. In Book of Abstracts ESMRMB 2025 Online: 41st Annual Scientific Meeting (8–11 October 2025). Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine (MAGMA). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-025-01278-8 [doi]
5. Rakow-Penner, R., Daniel, B., Yu, H., Sawyer-Glover, A., & Glover, G. H. (2006). Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measured using IDEAL. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 23(1), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20494 [doi]
6. UK Department of Health and Social Care. (2024, September 27). Technical guidelines for MRI for the surveillance of women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. NHS England. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-breast-screening-using-mri-with-higher-risk-women/technical-guidelines-for-mri-for-the-surveillance-of-women-at-higher-risk-of-developing-breast-cancer
7. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1(8476):307-310.
8. Sangal, M., Anikeeva, M., Priese, S. C., Mattern, H., Hövener, J.-B., & Speck, O. (2023). MR based magnetic susceptibility measurements of 3D printing materials at 3 Tesla. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Open, 16-17, 100138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmro.2023.100138 [doi]
9. Schindelin, J., Arganda-Carreras, I., Frise, E., Kaynig, V., Longair, M., Pietzsch, T., … Cardona, A. (2012). Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature Methods, 9(7), 676–682. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2019 [doi]
10. P. Thevenaz, U. E. Ruttimann and M. Unser, "A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity," in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 27-41, Jan. 1998, doi: 10.1109/83.650848. [doi]
11. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8(2):135-160
12. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86(2):420-428
13. Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012 [doi]

Cite this abstract

http://echo.ismrm.org/p/ISMRM2026/462-06-005