(30 days)
Intended Use
The DVS (Dose Verification System) is intended for use in radiation therapy to verify treatment planning and radiation dose to tissue and organs in or near the irradiated areas of a patient.
Indications for Use
The DVS system is specifically indicated for breast and prostate cancer to measure photon beam therapy and as an adjunct to treatment planning to permit measurement of the in vivo radiation dose received at the tumor periphery, tumor bed and/or surrounding normal tissues for validation of the prescribed dose.
The DVS, Dose Verification System consists of four sub-systems: the DVS Implantable Dosimeter for measuring radiation dose in vivo, the DVS Insertion Tool for implanting the dosimeter during percutaneous procedures, the DVS Reader System (Wand and Base Station) for powering the dosimeter and providing a user interface when taking dose measurements, and the DVS Data System (Plan and Review Software and Dosimetery Database) for storing and reporting patient data and for storing dosimeter information. The dosimeters use a MOSFET, Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor, as a sensing mechanism. The dosimeter is factory calibrated and powered by the Reader Wand utilizing electromagnetic energy. The dosimeter contains a transmitter, to transmit threshold voltage readings to the reader. It is radioopaque and thus registers on computed tomography scans as a point of interest whereby a point dose may be determined. Patients are implanted prior to radiotherapy. Information on the patient's therapy, dose planning, point dose at the dosimeter, dosimeter serial number and calibration files are entered into the Plan and Review software and stored in the Dosimetry Database. At each therapy fraction the dosimeter is read pre- and post-therapy using the Reader Wand and Base Station. This translates into a daily fractional dose. The patient's daily and cumulative dose may be reviewed via the Plan and Review software. Because the Plan and Review software and Dosimetry Database are designed to be stored on a server, multiple users may be logged into the system at any one time. Reports on the patient's daily and cumulative dose history may be printed using the Plan and Review software.
The provided 510(k) summary for the Sicel Technologies, Inc. DVS (Dose Verification System) describes the device, its intended use, and its comparison to predicate devices, but it does not contain the specific details required to answer all of your questions regarding acceptance criteria and the comprehensive study that proves the device meets those criteria.
Specifically, the document states: "Furthermore, verification and validation testing based on the risk analysis, provided information sufficient to determine that the modifications did not have an effect on safety or efficacy and demonstrated that the device met pre-determined acceptance criteria based on performance specifications. The testing demonstrated that the modified device is substantially equivalent to the predicate device and performs as well as the predicate device. The verification and validation results are provided within the 510(k)." However, these detailed results are not included in the provided text extract.
Therefore, many of your questions cannot be answered with the given information.
Here's a breakdown of what can and cannot be answered:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
- Cannot fully answer. While the document mentions "pre-determined acceptance criteria based on performance specifications" and a "change in the accuracy specification" for the modified device, the actual numerical acceptance criteria and the reported device performance against these criteria are not provided.
2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)
- Cannot answer. This information is not present in the provided text.
3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)
- Cannot answer. This information is not present in the provided text. The DVS is a dosimeter for measuring physical radiation dose, not an imaging device requiring expert interpretation for ground truth. Its ground truth would likely be established from known radiation sources and measurement standards.
4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set
- Cannot answer. This information is not present in the provided text. Given the nature of a dosimeter, "adjudication" in the context of expert consensus on image interpretation is not applicable.
5. 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
- Cannot answer. This information is not present in the provided text. The DVS is a diagnostic tool for measuring radiation dose, not an AI-assisted diagnostic imaging system that would typically undergo an MRMC study. There's no mention of AI integration for human reader improvement.
6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done
- Partially Answerable (by inference but no direct statement). The DVS is a physical device (dosimeter) that measures radiation. Its performance would inherently be "standalone" in terms of its measurement accuracy, as it directly detects and quantifies radiation. The human interaction is with reading the device output and integrating it into treatment planning, not in performing the measurement itself. The "verification and validation testing" mentioned would have evaluated the device's accuracy in a standalone manner.
7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)
- Partially Answerable (by inference). For a radiation dosimeter, the ground truth would typically be established by:
- Known radiation sources: Measuring reference radiation fields with well-established and traceable dose rates.
- Comparison to other validated dosimeters/standards: Comparing the DVS readings to those of other highly accurate and calibrated dosimeters.
- This would involve physical measurements and calibration against international standards, not expert consensus or pathology data.
8. The sample size for the training set
- Cannot answer. This information is not present. As a physical measurement device, it's not "trained" in the typical machine learning sense with a training set. It is factory calibrated.
9. How the ground truth for the training set was established
- Cannot answer definitively. As explained above, the device is "factory calibrated." This means its response to known radiation doses is characterized and stored. The methods for establishing the ground truth for this factory calibration (e.g., using primary or secondary standard dosimetry systems) are not detailed in the provided text.
In summary, the provided 510(k) summary serves as an administrative document for regulatory submission and does not contain the detailed technical study results you are seeking. These details would typically be found in the full 510(k) submission documentation, including specific test reports and performance data.
§ 892.5050 Medical charged-particle radiation therapy system.
(a)
Identification. A medical charged-particle radiation therapy system is a device that produces by acceleration high energy charged particles (e.g., electrons and protons) intended for use in radiation therapy. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, treatment planning computer programs, component parts, and accessories.(b)
Classification. Class II. When intended for use as a quality control system, the film dosimetry system (film scanning system) included as an accessory to the device described in paragraph (a) of this section, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 892.9.