Search Results

Helax-TMS is a 3D radiotherapy treatment planning system for radiation dose planning, but not treatment, of patients undergoing external beam or Brachytherapy treatment in the Oncology clinic. The system is designed to lead the user through a logical flow planning process.

Based on quality assured radiation therapy input data Helax-TMS is used to plan radiation treatments with:

• linear accelerators with X-ray energies from 4 to 50MV and electron energies from 4 to 50MeV as well as cobalt-60 units. Helax-TMS will plan 3D radiotherapy treatment approaches of combined modality plans, asymmetric and non-coplanar fields; total body irradiation; multi-leaf collimators; motorised and dynamic wedges; customised blocking; compensating filters; and bolus.
• Brachytherapy units for patients undergoing interstitial or intracavitary treatment in the Oncology clinic.

Export capabilities exists as part of Helax-TMS to verify beam and patient data, dose planning results, and provide on-line information to block-cutting devices and milling machines, multi-leaf collimator control units, as well as record and verify systems.

Helax TMS is a 3D Radiotherapy Treatment Planning (RTP) system for radiation dose planning of patients undergoing external beam and Brachytherapy treatment in the oncology clinic. TMS is a 3-D system, using modern algorithms for dose calculations. The user has the option of selecting either a convolution/superposition pencil beam or a Collapsed Cone algorithm for photons, and a Gaussian pencil beam model for electrons. A Brachytherapy module is integrated into TMS for treatment modeling of interstitial and intracavity Brachytherapy techniques. The system software is designed to lead the user through a logical flow planning process.

The provided text describes a 510(k) summary for the Helax-TMS v5.0, a 3D Radiotherapy Treatment Planning (RTP) system. However, it does not contain any information about acceptance criteria, device performance metrics, or details of a study used to prove the device meets said criteria.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Submitter and Contact Information: Basic administrative details.
• Device Name and Classification: Identifies Helax-TMS as a Medical Charged-Particle Radiation Therapy System.
• Legally Marketed Predicate Devices: Lists similar devices already on the market.
• Description of Helax-TMS v5.0: Explains its functionality as a 3D RTP system for both external beam and Brachytherapy, highlighting its algorithms and treatment planning capabilities.
• Intended Use: Specifies the scenarios in which Helax-TMS is used, including various X-ray and electron energies, treatment approaches, and integration with other medical devices.
• Technological Characteristics: States that v5.0 is a modification of previous versions and that these modifications do not adversely affect safety or effectiveness.
• FDA Clearance Letter: A letter from the FDA indicating that the device has been reviewed and found substantially equivalent to legally marketed predicate devices.
• Indications for Use Statement: Reiterates the intended use and capabilities of the device, similar to the description.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill the request to describe the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them based on the provided text. The document is a regulatory submission for a device, confirming its substantial equivalence, but it does not detail the technical performance evaluation studies or specific acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

Patients planned for radiation treatment, either to verify a prescribed plan, or to help at the planning at the simulator.

Helax-IMCON is an image workstation that replaces the fluoroscopic monitor at a radiotherapy simulator. It is connected to the video signal from the image intensifier of the simulator and the X-ray images are captured by a frame grabber and converted to digital images.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Helax-IMCON Simulator Workstation (IMCON), dated 1998-08-11. It's a regulatory submission affirming the device's substantial equivalence to a predicate device. It is not a scientific publication detailing a study with specific acceptance criteria and performance metrics in the way a clinical trial or performance study report would.

Therefore, most of the requested information regarding detailed acceptance criteria, specific performance metrics, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, and MRMC study details cannot be found in this document.

The document states that "Performance tests were conducted and the results indicated that the system consistently performed within the design parameters and equivalently to the predicate device." However, it does not provide the specifics of these tests.

Below is a breakdown of what can be extracted or inferred from the provided text, and what information is missing.

Acceptance Criteria and Device Performance

Missing Information (and why it's missing from this type of document):

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification, which aims to demonstrate that a new device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device. It typically focuses on comparing the new device's intended use, technological characteristics, and safety/effectiveness to an existing one, rather than presenting a detailed performance study with explicit acceptance criteria and quantitative results from a new clinical or technical trial.

Therefore, the following information is not available in the provided text:

• Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not mentioned. The "performance tests" are only vaguely referenced.
• Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not mentioned. No explicit "ground truth" establishment in the context of a performance study is described.
• Adjudication method for the test set: Not mentioned.
• 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: Not done/mentioned. This device is an imaging workstation, not an AI diagnostic tool in the modern sense.
• If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done: Not applicable/mentioned. This device is explicitly an "imageworkstation" intended to be operated by humans (radiographers, physicists, physicians).
• The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc): Not mentioned.
• The sample size for the training set: Not mentioned. This is not an AI/ML device in the contemporary sense that would have a "training set" for model development. It's a workstation connected to a simulator.
• How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable/mentioned.

In summary: The document serves its purpose as a 510(k) submission by asserting substantial equivalence and compliance with relevant standards. However, it does not contain the detailed performance study data, acceptance criteria, or methodological specifics that would be found in a research paper or a detailed performance validation report. The "study" mentioned is referred to as "Performance tests were conducted and the results indicated that the system consistently performed within the design parameters and equivalently to the predicate device," which is a high-level summary suitable for a 510(k) submission to demonstrate equivalence, but lacks the granular detail requested.

Ask a specific question about this device

Helax-VISIR is designed to be a tool for supporting the process of scheduling, preparing, setting up, delivering and recording radiation therapy. It will help administrating patient sessions through the booking functionality and activity reports. It will fetch data from dose planning systems and simulators automatically or by manual input. At each individual treatment Helax-VISIR will present setup data to the operator and also to the linac through a specific interface. Actual setup will be verified. During treatment Helax-VISIR can monitor the progress of both monitor values and optional in vivo dosimetry. All data relevant for the given treatment can be recorded.

Helax-VISIR is intended to be operated by physiciats, physicians and radiographers skilled in radiation therapy and trained in using the system. Thus the functionality of VISIR is to a large extent based on warnings instead of inhibiting actions. Absolute inhibition is used in situations where e.g. inconsistencies could be introduced. The overall philosophy is not to take control but to help the staff detecting unintentional actions.

The intended use is the same as the predicate devices.

Indications For Use: radiation treatment Patients undergoing according to prescribed treatment plan.

The Helax-VISIR system is a modern product for improved treatment management and quality assurance in Radiotherapy. The increasing complexity of treatment techniques and equipment requires a flexible and vendor-independent system for the booking, set-up, verification and documentation of the radiotherapy process.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the Helax-VISIR system, a Verification and Information System in Radiotherapy. It outlines the device's intended use, technological characteristics, and its substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

However, the document does not contain the specific information requested in the prompt regarding acceptance criteria, study details, sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, or MRMC studies.

Instead, the document states:

• "Performance tests were conducted and the results indicated that the system consistently performed within the design parameters and equivalently to the predicate device."
• "The Helax-VISIR has the same technological characteristics and is similar in design, function, and application to the predicate device."
• "There are no differences between the technology of the predicate device and the Helax-VISIR and only minor differences in configuration and specifications... These differences do not alter the intended use or affect the safety and effectiveness of the Helax-VISIR system when used as labelled."

This indicates that Helax AB demonstrated substantial equivalence primarily through comparison with the predicate device and general performance testing, rather than an independent clinical study with detailed acceptance criteria and expert evaluation as would be typical for more complex AI-enabled medical devices today.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer the study-specific questions based on the provided text. The document focuses on regulatory compliance through substantial equivalence, not on a detailed scientific study with quantifiable acceptance criteria demonstrated through a specific test set.

Ask a specific question about this device