Table 1.

Breast Phantom quality assessment

	Phantom Material	Pros	Cons	Material Hardness*
Phantom 1	VeroClear and VeroBlue	Sanitary Anatomically accurate	No US penetrance Poor tissue integrity simulation Expensive Not reusable	Shore D = 83–86
Phantom 2	Tango Plus	Sanitary Anatomically accurate	No US penetrance Poor tissue integrity simulation Expensive Not reusable	Shore A = 26–28
Phantom 3	Fat: Tissue Matrix and A30Clear FGT: VeroClear and A30Clear	Sanitary Realistic tissue integrity simulation Anatomically accurate	No US penetrance Expensive Not reusable	Shore A = 30
Phantom 4	Chicken Breast with pimento olive targets	Excellent ultrasound penetration with easily visible target lesions Realistic tissue integrity simulation Affordable	Unsanitary Not reusable Anatomically inaccurate	Shore-000 = 36
Phantom 5	Knox Gelatin with blueberry targets	Excellent ultrasound penetration with easily visible target lesions Affordable	Unsanitary Excessively soft integrity Not reusable Anatomically inaccurate	Shore-00 = 10

^*Hardness values provided by manufacturer or based on established values of comparable materials [20, 21].