Search Results

The PTW DAVID is a transparent multiple wire or multiple segment ionization chamber with attached electronics. It is intended to be used as an IMRT QC check device to make verification measurements and provide documentation of the leaf positions and doses from medical accelerators used for IMRT radiotherapy sequences. Data acquired by the PTW DAVID is used to compare and to verify a treatment dose to a prescribed dose and to compile radiation bear data, consistency, over time as part of a quality assurance program.

The PTW DAVID system MLC-29 is a transparent, segmented, multi-wire ionization chamber with 37 wires or segments. It is designed for operation in medical hierar accelerators with 29 multi-leaf collimator pairs.

The PTW DAVID system MLC-80 is a transparent, segmented, multi-wire ionization chamber with 40 wires or segments. It is designed for operation in medical hiear accelerators with 40 multi-leaf collimator pairs.

The PTW DAVID system MLC-120 and MLC-80 are transparent, segmented, multiwire ionization chamber with 80 and 40 wires or segments. They are desioned for operation in medical linear accelerators with 60 or 40 multi-leaf collimator pairs.

The software for the PTW DAVID is for recording or logging measurement data only.

This document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the PTW DAVID, an IMRT QC check device. The device is intended for quality control verification measurements and documentation of leaf positions and doses from medical accelerators used for IMRT radiotherapy.

Based on the provided document, the following information regarding acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them can be extracted:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance:

   Acceptance Criteria	Reported Device Performance
   General
   Compliance with IEC 60601-1	Met
   Compliance with IEC 60601-1-2	Met
   Compliance with UL 60601-1	Met
   Compliance with ISO 9001 certification (manufacturing, testing, process, procedures)	Met
   CE marked	Met (CE 0124)
   Technological Characteristics
   Meet or exceed predicate device specifications (PTW QC6Plus, K972211)	Met (stated that it "meet or exceed that of the predicate device since both devices are produced by the same manufacturer")
   Safety and Effectiveness
   No issues with regard to safety and effectiveness compared to predicate device	Met (based on compliance with standards and technological characteristics)

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective):
   The document does not provide details on a specific test set sample size or data provenance for proving the device's performance directly. The basis for acceptance is stated as compliance with relevant medical device standards and a comparison of technological characteristics to a predicate device.

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):
   This information is not provided in the document. The acceptance is based on adherence to recognized standards and comparison to a predicate device, rather than a clinical trial with expert-established ground truth.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
   This information is not provided in the document.

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:
   This information is not provided in the document. The PTW DAVID is an IMRT QC check device, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers. Therefore, an MRMC study demonstrating human reader improvement with AI assistance would not be applicable.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
   The document describes the PTW DAVID as an ionization chamber for QC verification measurements. Its performance evaluation, as described, is based on meeting technical specifications and compliance with standards, rather than an "algorithm-only" performance study in the context of diagnostic AI. The software is "for recording or logging measurement data only" (page 0), implying it processes raw data from the chamber. No specific standalone algorithm performance study is described in the document in the way it would be for an AI diagnostic device. The device's performance is intrinsically linked to the physical measurement capability of the ionization chamber.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
   The concept of "ground truth" as typically used in AI diagnostic studies (e.g., pathology for cancer detection) is not directly applicable or mentioned here. The "ground truth" for this device's performance would be the physically accurate measurement of leaf positions and doses from medical accelerators, verified by established calibration methods and adherence to industry standards for dosimetry devices.

8. The sample size for the training set:
   This information is not provided in the document. The PTW DAVID is a physical measurement device, not a machine learning model that requires a training set in the conventional sense.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
   This information is not provided in the document, as it is not a machine learning device requiring a training set with established ground truth.

Summary of the study/evidence presented for acceptance:

The approval of the PTW DAVID device by the FDA (K062817) is based on a Substantial Equivalence (SE) determination to a legally marketed predicate device, the PTW QC6Plus (K972211). The manufacturer's argument for substantial equivalence is primarily founded on:

• Comparison of Technological Characteristics: The PTW DAVID is stated to "meet or exceed that of the predicate device" because both are produced by the same manufacturer.
• Compliance with Recognized Standards: The device is designed in full accordance with IEC 60601-1, IEC 60601-1-2, and UL 60601-1 for medical electrical equipment safety and electromagnetic compatibility.
• Quality System Compliance: The manufacturing, testing, process, and procedures comply with ISO 9001 certification.
• CE Marking: Both the device and its predicate are CE marked (CE 0124).
• Intended Use Equivalence: The intended use of the PTW DAVID is consistent with its function as an IMRT QC check device for verification measurements and documentation, comparing treatment dose to prescribed dose, and compiling radiation beam data for quality assurance.

The document implicitly relies on the predicate device's established safety and effectiveness, and the PTW DAVID's adherence to relevant standards and equivalent or superior technological characteristics, to demonstrate its own safety and effectiveness. It does not present a de novo clinical trial or performance study with a specific test set, ground truth acquisition by experts, or AI-specific performance metrics.

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

Ask a specific question about this device

The PTW T10004 MULTIDOS is a multiple-purpose, multiple-channel electrometer inlended to perform a range of measuring tasks in radiation therapy. As a stand alone dosemeter, MULTIDOS is intended to be used to measure the dose delivered to a palient during a radiation therapy treatment. Dose measurements during treatment may be accomplished by using suitable ionization chambers or solid state detectors and are used to compare and to verify treatment dose to prescribed dose.

When connected to the optional QC6PLUS, MULTIDOS is intended to be used to measure the beam characteristics of radiation therapy treatment machines. Data acquired with the MULTIDOS and the QC6PLUS is used to compile radiation beam data over time as part of a quality assurance program.

High quality dosimetry devices like the PTW T10004 MULTIDOS and the optional T42007 QC6PLUS make it possible to routinely measure, record, document and verify therapeutic amounts of ionizing radiation with an exceptionally high degree of accuracy and precision. High quality multiple purpose dosimetry devices are essential if accurate data from trealment machines that produce therapeutic amounts of ionizing radiation are to be properly monitored.

The PTW T10004 MULTIDOS is a field class multiple-purpose multiple-channel electrometer. This device is designed to accurately measure dose, dose rate, charge, and current for photons and electrons in the therapeutic energy ranges. MULTIDOS may be configured as a stand alone 2, 6, or 12 channel electrometer and can be used with suitable ionization chambers and solid state detectors.

The PTW T42007 QC6PLUS is a therapy beam constancy device which may configured with 6 or 10 individual 0.54 cm³ ionization chambers orthogonally arranged and imbedded in a 5 cm thick PMMA slab. When the QC6PLUS is connected to MULTIDOS, therapy beam parameters like flatness, symmetry, energy stability, and central beam dose are easily monitored.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the PTW T10004 MULTIDOS and PTW T42007 QC6PLUS devices. It declares that the devices are substantially equivalent to their predicate devices and focuses on their technical specifications, intended use, and comparison to existing products.

Crucially, this document does NOT contain information about acceptance criteria or a study proving that the device meets such criteria. It's a regulatory filing for market clearance based on substantial equivalence, not a performance study report.

Therefore, I cannot provide the requested information. The text does not include:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Sample sizes used for test sets or data provenance.
3. Number or qualifications of experts used to establish ground truth.
4. Adjudication methods.
5. Information on multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness studies.
6. Results of a standalone (algorithm only) performance study.
7. The type of ground truth used.
8. Sample size for the training set.
9. How ground truth for the training set was established.

The document primarily establishes that the new devices have the "same" indications for use, designs, manufacturing processes, materials, and specifications as their predicate devices, which were already on the market. This claim of "substantial equivalence" is the basis for their 510(k) clearance, not a new performance study against defined acceptance criteria.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PTW T31006 and T31007 Pinpoint type ionization chambers are intended to be used for the collection of beam data in water, air, or other suitable solid state phantom material from radiation therapy treatment machines. This data is used to completely document the beam characteristics of treatment machines and to establish and maintain an on going treatment machine quality assurance program.

The PTW T31006 and T31007 are classical waterproof ionization chambers that differ only in the lengths of their respective active volumes. The T31006 is a 0.015 cc ionization chamber with a 5 mm active length and the T31007 is a 0.005 cc ionization chamber with a 2 mm active length. Both chamber volumes are open to the atmosphere, they are waterproof, and they are vented via their connectors. These chambers are constructed of precisely the same materials, are available with a 1 m or 10 m cable for connection to an electrometer, and may be terminated in a variety of standard electrometer connectors (BNT, TNC, PTW M, or BNC banana.

Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the PTW T31006 and T31007 Pinpoint type ionization chambers for their acceptance criteria and study information:

This submission is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for ionization chambers, which are measurement devices. As such, the concept of "device performance" in terms of clinical outcomes or diagnostic accuracy doesn't directly apply in the same way it would to an imaging or therapeutic device for patients. Instead, the "performance" here relates to their measurement accuracy, precision, and adherence to established specifications compared to predicate devices.

The document primarily demonstrates substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than a standalone clinical study. Therefore, many of the requested fields regarding a clinical study will not be explicitly present.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

Explanation of "Acceptance Criteria" for this device:

Since this is a 510(k) submission for a measurement device, the "acceptance criteria" are implicitly defined by demonstrating substantial equivalence to already cleared predicate devices. The primary acceptance criterion is that the new devices do not raise new questions of safety or effectiveness and are equivalent in indications for use, technological characteristics, and performance to the predicate devices. The study, in this context, is the comparison to the predicate device and the assertion of equivalence.

Study Information (Based on 510(k) Submission)

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

• The document does not describe a traditional clinical study with a "test set" of patient data.
• The "test" here involves the characterization and comparison of the new devices (PTW T31006 and T31007) against the predicate devices (PTW T31002 and T31003) and their known specifications. The sample size would refer to the number of units tested, but this information is not provided in the summary.
• Data provenance (country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is not applicable or stated for this type of submission.

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)

• Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic device requiring expert interpretation or ground truth establishment in a clinical context. The "ground truth" for an ionization chamber's performance would be its physical measurement accuracy against traceable standards, which is not detailed in this summary, but would be part of the internal manufacturing and testing processes.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

• Not applicable. No clinical adjudication method is described. The "adjudication" is internal to the manufacturer's quality control and testing processes demonstrating adherence to specifications and equivalence.

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

• Not applicable. This is not a diagnostic or AI-assisted device.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) was done

• Not applicable. This is a passive measurement device, not an algorithm. Its operation is standalone in the sense that it collects data without human interpretation during the collection, but the interpretation of the collected data is done by humans.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert concensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

• For a measurement device like an ionization chamber, the "ground truth" would typically be established by comparison to primary or secondary standards in a metrology laboratory, ensuring the device accurately measures radiation dose. This is not explicitly detailed in the 510(k) summary but is implied by the assertion of "specifications are the same as the predicate devices" and "routinely measure, record, and document therapeutic amounts of ionizing radiation with an exceptionally high degree of accuracy and precision."

8. The sample size for the training set

• Not applicable. There is no machine learning or AI algorithm involved, so no training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

• Not applicable. No training set.

Ask a specific question about this device

The PTW T30004, T30005, T30001 and T30002 0.6 cc Farmer type ionization chambers are intended to be used for the collection of beam data in water, air, or other suitable solid state phantom material from radiation therapy treatment machines. This data is used to completely document the beam characteristics of treatment machines and to establish and maintain an on going treatment machine quality assurance program.

The PTW T30004 and T30005 are classical 0.6 cc Farmer type ionization chambers. These chambers differ only in the type of material their respected thimbles are made of. The T30004 has a graphite thimble and an aluminum stem and the T30005 has a solid water thimble and an aluminum stem. The chambers can be thimble vented, which is not waterproof, or connector vented, which is water proof. Both chambers offer 1 or 10 meter cables for connection to an electrometer, and a variety of standard electrometer connectors (BNT, TNC, M, BNC banana). The connector vented version of the PTW T30001 and T30002 Farmer type ionization chambers are simply a waterproof version of the thimble vented chambers that were cleared to market by the FDA under K951764. The Farmer type ionization chamber, when connected to an appropriate electrometer like the PTW-UNYODS. K951764, is used to collect beam data from radiation therapy treatment machines.

I am sorry, but the provided text does not contain the necessary information to generate a table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance or to describe a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria.

The document is a 510(k) submission summary for PTW 0.6 cc Ionization Chambers. It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices (K951764) rather than presenting a performance study with acceptance criteria.

Specifically, the document states:

• "The indications for use are exactly the same as the predicate devices..."
• "The designs are exactly the same."
• "The manufacturing and testing, process and procedures are exactly the same."
• "The specifications are the same as the predicate devices."

This indicates that the submission relies on the existing clearance of the predicate device and asserts that the new devices are essentially the same, rather than providing new performance data against specific acceptance criteria.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill your request for:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance.
2. Details of a study proving the device meets acceptance criteria, including sample sizes, data provenance, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, standalone performance, ground truth types, and training set information.

Ask a specific question about this device