(87 days)
The Barco MMPC-4127F1 (PP27QHD) device is intended for in vitro diagnostic use to display digital images of histopathology slides acquired from IVD-labeled whole-slide imaging scanners that have been validated for use with this device, for review and interpretation by pathologists. The display is not intended for use with digital images from frozen section, cytology, or non-formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded (non-FFPE) hematopathology specimens.
The MMPC-4127F1, also marketed as the PP27QHD, is a stabilized, color-calibrated display system designed to review and interpret digital images of surgical pathology slides.
The display is equipped with a 27-inch color LCD panel with a fine pixel pitch that can be calibrated to the sRGB gamut.
Accessories:
- QAWeb quality assurance software
- DisplayPort cable
- USB cable
- AC power cord cables
The provided text describes a 510(k) submission for a medical device, the Barco MMPC-4127F1 (PP27QHD) display, which is intended for in vitro diagnostic use to display digital images of histopathology slides. The submission aims to demonstrate substantial equivalence to a predicate device.
The study presented is not for an AI/algorithm-only device, but for a display system. Therefore, many of the requested fields related to AI/algorithm performance (e.g., effect size, standalone performance, training set details, adjudication methods, multi-reader multi-case studies) are not applicable to this type of device. The acceptance criteria and performance testing focus on the display's technical characteristics and visual performance as they compare to the predicate device.
Here's an analysis based on the provided document:
1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance
The document doesn't explicitly state "acceptance criteria" in a pass/fail quantifiable manner for each parameter, but rather compares the new device's specifications directly to the predicate device's specifications. The implicit acceptance criterion is that the new device's performance should be similar to or better than the predicate device without introducing new issues of safety or performance. The "reported device performance" is essentially the listed "New Device MMPC-4127F1 (PP27QHD)" specifications.
| Parameter | New Device MMPC-4127F1 (PP27QHD) | Predicate Device MMPC-4127 (PP27QHDCR) | Implicit Acceptance Criteria (based on comparison) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Display Optical Performance | |||
| Display technology | IPS LCD | IPS LCD | Same |
| Native Resolution | 2560 x1440 | 2560 x1440 | Same |
| Display LUT | ≥ 10 bit / sub-pixel | ≥ 10 bit / sub-pixel | Same or equivalent |
| Pixel Pitch (Horizontal) (mm) | 0.2331 | 0.2331 | Same |
| Pixel pitch (Vertical) (mm) | 0.2331 | 0.2331 | Same |
| Active screen (Diagonal) (mm / inch) | 685.8 / 27.0 | 685.8 / 27.0 | Same |
| Active screen (Width) (mm) | 596.74 | 596.74 | Same |
| Active screen (Height) (mm) | 335.66 | 335.66 | Same |
| Contrast Ratio - (typical) | 1000:1 | 1000:1 | Same or equivalent |
| Luminance stabilization | +2% / -2% front sensor | +2% / -2% backlight sensor | Similar (different sensor type, but same stability range) |
| Maximum Luminance (typical) (cd/m²) | 500 | 500 | Same or equivalent |
| DICOM Calibrated Luminance (Typical) (cd/m²) | 350 | 350 | Same or equivalent |
| Luminance non-uniformity (per DIN6868-157), diagnostic room class |
§ 864.3700 Whole slide imaging system.
(a)
Identification. The whole slide imaging system is an automated digital slide creation, viewing, and management system intended as an aid to the pathologist to review and interpret digital images of surgical pathology slides. The system generates digital images that would otherwise be appropriate for manual visualization by conventional light microscopy.(b)
Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:(1) Premarket notification submissions must include the following information:
(i) The indications for use must specify the tissue specimen that is intended to be used with the whole slide imaging system and the components of the system.
(ii) A detailed description of the device and bench testing results at the component level, including for the following, as appropriate:
(A) Slide feeder;
(B) Light source;
(C) Imaging optics;
(D) Mechanical scanner movement;
(E) Digital imaging sensor;
(F) Image processing software;
(G) Image composition techniques;
(H) Image file formats;
(I) Image review manipulation software;
(J) Computer environment; and
(K) Display system.
(iii) Detailed bench testing and results at the system level, including for the following, as appropriate:
(A) Color reproducibility;
(B) Spatial resolution;
(C) Focusing test;
(D) Whole slide tissue coverage;
(E) Stitching error; and
(F) Turnaround time.
(iv) Detailed information demonstrating the performance characteristics of the device, including, as appropriate:
(A) Precision to evaluate intra-system and inter-system precision using a comprehensive set of clinical specimens with defined, clinically relevant histologic features from various organ systems and diseases. Multiple whole slide imaging systems, multiple sites, and multiple readers must be included.
(B) Reproducibility data to evaluate inter-site variability using a comprehensive set of clinical specimens with defined, clinically relevant histologic features from various organ systems and diseases. Multiple whole slide imaging systems, multiple sites, and multiple readers must be included.
(C) Data from a clinical study to demonstrate that viewing, reviewing, and diagnosing digital images of surgical pathology slides prepared from tissue slides using the whole slide imaging system is non-inferior to using an optical microscope. The study should evaluate the difference in major discordance rates between manual digital (MD) and manual optical (MO) modalities when compared to the reference (
e.g., main sign-out diagnosis).(D) A detailed human factor engineering process must be used to evaluate the whole slide imaging system user interface(s).
(2) Labeling compliant with 21 CFR 809.10(b) must include the following:
(i) The intended use statement must include the information described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, as applicable, and a statement that reads, “It is the responsibility of a qualified pathologist to employ appropriate procedures and safeguards to assure the validity of the interpretation of images obtained using this device.”
(ii) A description of the technical studies and the summary of results, including those that relate to paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (iii) of this section, as appropriate.
(iii) A description of the performance studies and the summary of results, including those that relate to paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section, as appropriate.
(iv) A limiting statement that specifies that pathologists should exercise professional judgment in each clinical situation and examine the glass slides by conventional microscopy if there is doubt about the ability to accurately render an interpretation using this device alone.