Search Results

For in Vitro Diagnostic Use:
QCS HER2 ImmunoControls, are intended for a laboratory to control semi-quantitative immunohistochemistry using different HER2/neu antibodies. Each QCS HER2 control slide contains four control sections prepared from breast cancer ccll lines that represent different levels of Her-2/neu protein expression. The cells are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded. These controls ensure that performance of immunohistochemical staining is consistent in one laboratory over time and also aids in correlation with the results of other laboratories.

QCS HER2 ImmunoControls: This product provides appropriate control for semi-quantitative immunohistochemistry using polyclonal or monoclonal HER2/neu antibodies. Each slide contains four control sections prepared from breast cancer cell lines that represent different levels of Her-2/neu protein expression (-, 1+, 2+, 3+). These cells are formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded, the slide is positively charged.

Here's a breakdown of the acceptance criteria and study information for the QCS HER2 ImmunoControls, based on the provided text:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:

The document describes the device as a control with expected staining levels for different cell lines when tested with specific HER2 antibodies. The acceptance criteria are implicit in the "expected results" for the QCS HER2 Controls as presented in Table 1, which are compared directly to the predicate device, DAKO HER2 Controls.

2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:

• Sample Size for Test Set: Not explicitly stated. The "Multiple studies" sentence suggests more than one evaluation, but no specific number of samples or experiments is provided beyond the cell lines themselves.
• Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated for the specific comparison shown in Table 1. However, the cell lines (MDA-361, MDA-453, MDA-175, MCF-7) are human breast cancer cell lines. The referenced studies (Rhodes et al., Taylor CR, Ruby SG & McNally AC) are published scientific articles, implying a general scientific/medical community provenance. The context of a 510(k) summary implies the data was generated or compiled for regulatory submission. It is retrospective in the sense that the data in Table 1 represents established characteristics of these cell lines, likely from previous research, rather than a new prospective clinical trial.

3. Number of Experts Used to Establish Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications:

• Number of Experts: Not specified.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not specified. The data in Table 1 reflects "expected results" which are typically established through extensive research by pathologists and other specialists skilled in immunohistochemistry. The external references imply a basis in published, peer-reviewed scientific literature, often involving expert consensus or established laboratory practices.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

• Adjudication Method: Not specified. The "expected results" suggest a prior determination of the staining levels, likely based on established laboratory protocols and expert evaluation, rather than an explicit adjudication process for this specific submission.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was done:

• No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was NOT done. This device is a control slide for immunohistochemistry, not an AI diagnostic tool for interpreting images. The study focuses on demonstrating the control's intended performance (i.e., showing specific staining patterns) with standard antibodies, not on reader performance with or without AI assistance.

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

• Not applicable. This device is a physical control slide, not an algorithm. Therefore, "standalone performance" in the context of an algorithm is not relevant.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

• Ground Truth Type: Expert consensus/established biological characteristics. The "expected level of staining" for the cell lines, as recognized in the scientific community and presumably confirmed by the manufacturer's testing, serves as the ground truth. This is supported by the direct comparison to the "Expected level of staining for valid results on the DAKO cell line control slide, as given in the HercepTest protocol." This indicates that the ground truth is based on established, conventional laboratory understanding of these cell lines' HER2 expression.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

• Not applicable. This product is a control device, not an AI algorithm that requires a training set. The cell lines themselves are the "samples" whose characteristics are being confirmed.

9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set was Established:

• Not applicable. As this is not an AI algorithm, there is no "training set" in the conventional sense. The "ground truth" for the cell lines' HER2 expression levels would have been established through extensive research, molecular characterization, and immunhistochemical testing over time in research and diagnostic laboratories. The references provided (e.g., Rhodes et al.) highlight studies that contribute to establishing such control materials and their expected performance.

Ask a specific question about this device