Search Results

The primary function of ARTAssistant is to facilitate image processing with image registration and synthetic CT (sCT) generation in adaptive radiation therapy. This enables users to meticulously design ART plans based on the processed images.

ARTAssistant, is a standalone software which is positioned as an adaptive radiotherapy auxiliary system, aiming to provide a complete solution to assist the implementation of adaptive radiotherapy, helping hospitals to implement adaptive radiotherapy on ordinary image-guided accelerators based on the current situation. This system is mainly used to assist in the image processing of online adaptive radiotherapy, thereby helping users complete the design of the daily adaptive radiotherapy plan based on the processed images.

The product has three main functions on image processing:

1. Automatic registration: rigid and deformable registration, and
2. Image conversion: generation of synthetic CT from CBCT or MR, and
3. Image contouring: it can manual contour organs-at-risk, in head and neck, thorax, abdomen and pelvis (for both male and female) areas assisted contouring tools.

It also has the following general functions:

• Receive, add/edit/delete, transmit, input/export medical images and DICOM data;
• Patient management;
• Review of processed images.

Here's an analysis of the ARTAssistant device, focusing on its acceptance criteria and the study that proves it meets those criteria, based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter:

There is no specific table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance for ARTAssistant directly included in the provided 510(k) summary. The summary primarily focuses on comparing ARTAssistant's technological characteristics to predicate and reference devices and describes the performance tests conducted rather than explicit pass/fail criteria or quantitative results against those criteria.

However, based on the performance test descriptions, we can infer the intent of the acceptance criteria and how the device performance was evaluated.

Inferred Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

Study Details:

1. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Automatic Rigid & Deformable Registration Functions:
  • Sample Size: Not explicitly stated, but implies a collection of "multi-modality image sets from different patients." The count of sets/patients is not provided.
  • Data Provenance: All fixed and moving images were generated in healthcare institutions in the U.S. Retrospective or prospective is not specified, but typically, such datasets are retrospective.
• Image Conversion Function:
  • Sample Size: 247 testing image sets.
  • Data Provenance: All test images were generated in the U.S. The data provenance is retrospective.
  • Patient Demographics: 57% male, 43% female. Ages: 21-40 (13%), 41-60 (44.1%), 61-80 (36.8%), 81-100 (6.1%). Race: 78% White, 12% Black or African American, 10% Other.
  • Cancer Types: Covers 6 cancer types (Intracranial tumor, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, esophagus cancer, lung cancer, liver cancer, cervical cancer) with specific distributions for both MR/CT and CBCT/CT test datasets.
  • Scanner Models:
    • CT: GE (28.3%), Philips (41.7%), Siemens (30%)
    • MR: GE (21.6%), Philips (56.9%), Siemens (21.6%)
    • CBCT: Varian (58.8%), Elekta (41.2%)
  • Slice Thicknesses: Distributed as 1mm (19%), 2mm (22.8%), 2.5mm (17.4%), 3mm (17%), 5mm (23.8%).

2. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:

• The document does not explicitly state the number of experts or their qualifications used to establish ground truth for the test set.
• For the Image Conversion Dosimetric Accuracy, the AAPM TG-119 method is mentioned, which implies established phantom-based criteria or expert-derived dose distributions as a reference.
• For the Image Conversion Anatomic/Geometric Accuracy (Dice coefficient), the "segmentation results of each ROI on CBCT/MR" were compared, implying these "true" segmentations would likely have been established by qualified medical professionals, but this is not confirmed.

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• The document does not explicitly state an adjudication method (such as 2+1 or 3+1) for the test set. The evaluation methods described (NMI, HD, Gamma Pass Rate, Dice coefficient) are quantitative metrics compared against either a predicate device's output or established physical/dosimetric accuracy standards.

4. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study Was Done:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not explicitly mentioned or performed.
• The performance tests focused on the algorithm's standalone performance in comparison to either a predicate device's algorithm or established accuracy standards, not on how human readers improve with AI assistance.

5. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done:

• Yes, a standalone performance evaluation was conducted. The described "Performance Test Report on Rigid Registration Function," "Performance Test Report on Deformable Registration Function," and "Performance Test Report on Image Conversion Function" all relate to the algorithm's direct output and quantitative measurements without human intervention being part of the primary performance evaluation.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• For Rigid and Deformable Registration: The ground truth for comparison was the performance metrics (NMI and HD) of the predicate device (AccuContour, K221706). This indicates a comparative ground truth rather than an absolute biological or pathological ground truth.
• For Image Conversion (Dosimetric Accuracy): The ground truth was based on the AAPM TG-119 method, implying a phantom-based or established dosimetric standard against which the sRTDose was compared to the RTDose derived from true CT.
• For Image Conversion (Anatomic/Geometric Accuracy): The ground truth was the segmentation results of ROIs on the original CBCT/MR images, against which the segmentations on the sCT images were compared using the Dice similarity coefficient. This suggests expert consensus or manually established contours on the original images as ground truth.

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• For the deep learning model for image conversion: There were 560 training image sets.
• The document does not specify training set sizes for the rigid or deformable registration algorithms.

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

• For the deep learning model for image conversion: The document does not explicitly detail how the ground truth for the 560 training image sets was established. Given the nature of synthetic CT generation, the "ground truth" for training would typically involve pairs of input images (e.g., MR/CBCT) and corresponding reference CT images. This would likely be derived from clinical scans, potentially aligned and processed for model training, but the process of establishing the "correctness" of these pairs (e.g., precise anatomical alignment, image quality) is not elaborated upon.
  • Data Provenance (Training Set): The training image set source is from China.

Ask a specific question about this device