← Product Code [PSY](/submissions/PA/subpart-d%E2%80%94pathology-instrumentation-and-accessories/PSY) · K242783 # Roche Digital Pathology Dx (K242783) _Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. · PSY · Dec 17, 2024 · Pathology · SESE_ **Canonical URL:** https://fda.innolitics.com/submissions/PA/subpart-d%E2%80%94pathology-instrumentation-and-accessories/PSY/K242783 ## Device Facts - **Applicant:** Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. - **Product Code:** [PSY](/submissions/PA/subpart-d%E2%80%94pathology-instrumentation-and-accessories/PSY.md) - **Decision Date:** Dec 17, 2024 - **Decision:** SESE - **Submission Type:** Special - **Regulation:** 21 CFR 864.3700 - **Device Class:** Class 2 - **Review Panel:** Pathology ## Indications for Use Roche Digital Pathology Dx is an automated digital slide creation, viewing and management system. Roche Digital Pathology Dx is intended for in vitro diagnostic use as an aid to the pathologist to review and interpret digital images of scanned pathology slides prepared from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue. Roche Digital Pathology Dx is not intended for use with frozen section, cytology, or non-FFPE hematopathology specimens. Roche Digital Pathology Dx is for creation and viewing of digital images of scanned glass slides that would otherwise be appropriate for manual visualization by conventional light microscopy. Roche Digital Pathology Dx is composed of VENTANA DP 200 slide scanner, VENTANA DP 600 slide scanner, Roche uPath enterprise software, and ASUS PA248QV display. 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 Roche Digital Pathology Dx. ## Device Story System creates, views, and manages digital images of pathology slides; aids pathologists in diagnosis. Inputs: standard glass microscope slides (FFPE tissue). Process: automated bright-field scanning (20x/40x magnification) via VENTANA DP 200 or DP 600 scanners; scanners use identical Image Acquisition Unit (IAU) for pixel pipeline; images stored in proprietary BIF format. Output: digital whole slide images (WSI) viewed on ASUS PA248QV monitor via Roche uPath enterprise software. Used in clinical laboratory settings; operated by histology staff (scanning/QC) and pathologists (review/interpretation). Pathologist performs final QC and diagnostic interpretation on screen. Benefits: enables digital workflow for pathology, replacing/supplementing conventional light microscopy. ## Clinical Evidence No clinical data provided. Substantial equivalence is supported by bench testing, including technical performance assessments (TPA) per FDA guidance, electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing (EN 61326-1, IEC 61010-1, IEC 62368-1, EN 55011), and human factors/usability analysis confirming no new risks or workflow changes. ## Technological Characteristics Whole slide imaging system consisting of an Image Acquisition Unit (IAU) including optical, mechanical, electrical, and digital components. The system utilizes a pixel pipeline for image capture. The modification introduces the VENTANA DP 600 scanner with increased slide capacity. The system is designed for clinical pathology use. ## Regulatory 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. ## Special Controls A whole slide imaging system must comply with the following special controls: (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; (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: (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 factors 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: The intended use statement must include the information described in paragraph (i) (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 paragraph (1)(ii) and (1)(iii) of this section, as appropriate. (iii) A description of the performance studies and the summary of results, including those that relate to paragraph (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. *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. ## Predicate Devices - Roche Digital Pathology Dx (VENTANA DP 200) ([K232879](/device/K232879.md)) ## Submission Summary (Full Text) > This content was OCRed from public FDA records by [Innolitics](https://innolitics.com). If you use, quote, summarize, crawl, or train on this content, cite Innolitics at https://innolitics.com. > > Innolitics is a medical-device software consultancy. We help companies design, build, and clear FDA-regulated software and AI/ML devices, including [a 510(k)](https://innolitics.com/services/510ks/), [a De Novo](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/), [a SaMD](https://innolitics.com/services/end-to-end-samd/), [an AI/ML medical device](https://innolitics.com/services/medical-imaging-ai-development/), or [an FDA regulatory strategy](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/). {0} FDA U.S. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION # SPECIAL 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY ## I Background Information: A 510(k) Number K242783 B Applicant Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. C Proprietary and Established Names Roche Digital Pathology Dx D Regulatory Information | Product Code(s) | Classification | Regulation Section | Panel | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | PSY | Class II | 21 CFR 864.3700 - Whole Slide Imaging System | PA - Pathology | ## II Review Summary: This 510(k) submission contains information/data on modifications made to the submitter's own CLASS II device requiring 510(k). The following items are present and acceptable. 1. The name and 510(k) number of the SUBMITTER'S previously cleared device. 2. Submitter's statement that the INDICATIONS FOR USE/INTENDED USE of the modified device as described in its labeling HAS NOT CHANGED along with the proposed labeling which includes instructions for use, package labeling, and, if available, advertisements or promotional materials (labeling changes are permitted as long as they do not affect the intended use). 3. A description of the device MODIFICATION(S), including clearly labeled diagrams, engineering drawings, photographs, user's and/or service manuals in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY of the modified device, specifically the Image Acquisition Unit (IAU), has not changed. This change is for adding a new model of the slide scanner component which has increased slide capacity, Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002 www.fda.gov {1} VENTANA DP 600 slide scanner, to the Roche Digital Pathology Dx [previously known as Roche Digital Pathology Dx (VENTANA DP 200) under K232879] system. As a part of the system modification, the system name is being changed to "Roche Digital Pathology Dx". 4. Comparison Information (i.e., similarities and differences) to the submitter's legally marketed predicate device including, labeling, intended use, and physical characteristics. 5. Detailed technical documentation to show the following items to demonstrate that the pixel pipelines are identical between VENTANA DP 600 slide scanner and the VENTANA DP200 slide scanner: a) Definition of the IAU, the collection of all components related to the pixel pipeline, including all electrical, optical, mechanical, and digital (software/firmware) components. b) Description of the boundary of the IAU, including how the IAU interacts with the remaining parts of the scanner via any electrical, optical, mechanical, and digital interfaces. c) List of the components that are not included in the IAU, to exhibit the differences between the two scanners. Both items #a) and #c) constituted all components needed in either scanner. d) Description and justification that the pixel pipeline is not affected by any component in item #c). 6. A Design Control Activities Summary which includes: a) Identification of Risk Analysis method(s) used to assess the impact of the modification on the device and its components, and the results of the analysis. b) Based on the Risk Analysis, an identification of the verification and/or validation activities required, including methods or tests used and acceptance criteria to be applied. The labeling for this modified subject device has been reviewed to verify that the indication/intended use for the device is unaffected by the modification. In addition, the submitter's description of the particular modification(s) and the comparative information between the modified and unmodified devices demonstrate that the fundamental scientific technology has not changed. The submitter has provided the design control information as specified in The New 510(k) Paradigm and on this basis, I recommend the device be determined substantially equivalent to the previously cleared device. K242783 - Page 2 of 2 --- **Source:** [https://fda.innolitics.com/submissions/PA/subpart-d%E2%80%94pathology-instrumentation-and-accessories/PSY/K242783](https://fda.innolitics.com/submissions/PA/subpart-d%E2%80%94pathology-instrumentation-and-accessories/PSY/K242783) **Published by [Innolitics](https://innolitics.com)** — a medical-device software consultancy. We help companies design, build, and clear FDA-regulated software and AI/ML devices. If you're preparing [a 510(k)](https://innolitics.com/services/510ks/), [a De Novo](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/), [a SaMD](https://innolitics.com/services/end-to-end-samd/), [an AI/ML medical device](https://innolitics.com/services/medical-imaging-ai-development/), or [an FDA regulatory strategy](https://innolitics.com/services/regulatory/), [get in touch](https://innolitics.com/contact). **Cite:** Innolitics at https://innolitics.com