Search Results

MIM software is used by trained medical professionals as a tool to aid in evaluation and information management of digital medical images. The medical image modalities include, but are not limited to, CT, MR, CR, DX, MG, US, SPECT, PET, and XA as supported by ACR/NEMA DICOM 3.0. MIM assists in the following indications:

• Receive, transmit, store, retrieve, display, print, and process medical images and DICOM objects.
• Create, display, and print reports from medical images.
• Registration, fusion display, and review of medical images for diagnosis, staging, treatment planning, monitoring treatment response, and treatment evaluation.
• Evaluation of cardiac left ventricular function and perfusion, including left ventricular end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction.
• Localization and definition of objects such as tumors and normal tissues in medical images.
• Creation, transformation, and modification of contours for applications including, but not limited to, quantitative analysis, aiding adaptive therapy, transferring contours to radiation therapy treatment planning systems, and archiving contours for patient follow-up and management.
• Quantitative and statistical analysis of PET/SPECT brain scans by comparing to other registered PET/SPECT brain scans.
• Planning and evaluation of permanent implant brachytherapy procedures (not including radioactive microspheres).
• Calculating absorbed radiation dose as a result of administering a radionuclide.
• Assist with the planning and evaluation of ablation procedures by providing visualization and analysis, including energy zone visualization through the placement of virtual ablation devices validated for inclusion in MIM-Ablation. The software is not intended to predict specific ablation zone volumes or predict ablation success.

When using the device clinically, within the United States, the user should only use FDA approved radiopharmaceuticals. If used with unapproved ones, this device should only be used for research purposes.

Lossy compressed mammographic images and digitized film screen images must not be reviewed for primary image interpretations. Images that are printed to film must be printed using an FDA-approved printer for the diagnosis of digital mammography images. Mammographic images must be viewed on a display system that has been cleared by the FDA for the diagnosis of digital mammography images. The software is not to be used for mammography CAD.

When used for diagnostic purposes, the mobile thin client is not intended to replace a full workstation and should only be used when there is no access to a workstation.

The subject MIM – LesionID Pro device is a standalone software application that extends the functionality of the MIM software device. It is a modification to the predicate MIM software application (K243012) for incorporating updates to the LesionID Pro option that is commercially available in the currently distributed version of MIM software.

LesionID Pro assists users with the evaluation of PSMA PET/CT and SPECT/CT studies by automating hotspot segmentation and physiological uptake removal, to help reduce manual processing and streamline generation of Total Tumor Burden (TTB) statistics. It is provided via MIM Workflows that allow automation using scripts constructed of MIM software modular functions and commands.

LesionID Pro does not determine final hotspots segmentation for TTB generation, and requires users to review, edit, and confirm the segmentation before generating TTB statistics. The modifications made to LesionID Pro optimize the identification and removal of physiological uptake, automates the processing for a more streamlines workflow, and introduced enhancements related to user interface and experience.

Here's a summary of the acceptance criteria and the study proving the device meets them, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for MIM - LesionID Pro:

The clearance letter primarily focuses on the device's substantial equivalence to predicate devices and does not detail specific quantitative acceptance criteria or a comprehensive study plan with statistical results in the provided sections. Instead, it describes general performance testing and qualitative clinical reader evaluation.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The document describes the acceptance criteria as ensuring that the "initial TTB segmentation generated by LesionID Pro was of acceptable quality for clinical use in the context of PSMA PET and SPECT TTB segmentation and evaluation" and that it "reduce[s] user need for manual editing."

The reported device performance indicates that LesionID Pro "successfully completed performance testing on a clinically representative dataset to verify that the generated segmentations are adequate for use as an initial segmentation, helping to reduce user need for manual editing."

Given the information, a table of specific quantitative acceptance criteria and corresponding reported device performance values is not available in the provided text. The evaluation appears to be qualitative and aimed at verifying adequacy and reduction in manual editing.

Study Details

Based on the provided text, the study focuses on performance testing and clinical reader evaluation of LesionID Pro.

• 1. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance:

  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated as a number. The text mentions "a clinically representative dataset" and "clinically representative PSMA PET/CT and SPECT/CT patient clinical studies."
  • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin). The studies spanned "factors various relevant to the evaluation of LesionID Pro's segmentation performance (e.g., radiotracers, disease burden, imaging systems)." The readers were "United States board certified NM physicians," suggesting the clinical context is within the US. The information does not specify if the data was retrospective or prospective.

• 2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

  • Number of Experts: Not explicitly stated as a number. The "pre-defined segmentation Agreement Standard based on physician approved segmentation" implies expert consensus or approval was used to define the ground truth for comparison.
  • Qualifications of Experts (for ground truth): The "physician approved segmentation" implies qualified medical professionals, but their specific qualifications (e.g., years of experience) are not detailed here.

• 3. Adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:

  • The "pre-defined segmentation Agreement Standard based on physician approved segmentation" suggests a form of consensus or expert-defined standard, but the specific adjudication method (e.g., "2+1") is not described.

• 4. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance:

  • MRMC Study: A "qualitative clinical reader evaluation" was performed where readers assessed the "initial segmentation generated by LesionID Pro." This indicates a reader study, but it's not explicitly framed as an MRMC comparative effectiveness study measuring reader improvement with AI vs. without AI assistance. It seems to be an evaluation of the AI's output itself for clinical acceptability rather than a comparison of human performance with and without the AI.
  • Effect Size: No effect size or quantitative measure of human reader improvement with AI assistance is reported.

• 5. If a standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:

  • Yes, the "performance testing on a clinically representative dataset" compared the initial TTB segmentation generated by LesionID Pro (presumably standalone algorithm output) against a "pre-defined segmentation Agreement Standard." The qualitative clinical reader evaluation was of the initial segmentation generated by LesionID Pro, further supporting standalone evaluation. The device also "requires users to review, edit, and confirm the segmentation before generating TTB statistics," indicating the AI provides an initial segmentation, which is a standalone function.

• 6. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.):

  • The ground truth for comparison was a "pre-defined segmentation Agreement Standard based on physician approved segmentation." This points towards expert-defined or expert-approved segmentation.

• 7. The sample size for the training set:

  • Not specified. The document only mentions testing and verification.

• 8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

  • Not specified. The document only discusses the ground truth for the test set.

Ask a specific question about this device