Search Results

Mobius3D software is used for quality assurance, treatment plan verification, and patient alignment and anatomy analysis in radiation therapy. It calculates radiation dose three dimensionally in a representation of a patient or a phantom. The calculation is based on read-in treatment plans that are initially calculated by a treatment planning system, and may additionally be based on external measurements of radiation fields from other sources such as linac delivery log data. Patient alignment and anatomy analysis is based on read-in treatment planning images (such as computed tomography) and read-in daily treatment images (such as registered cone beam computed tomography).

Mobius3D is not a treatment planning system. It is to be used only by trained radiation oncology personnel as a quality assurance tool.

Mobius3D is a software product used within a radiation therapy clinic for quality assurance and treatment plan verification. It is important to note that while Mobius3D operates in the field of radiation therapy, it is neither a radiation delivery device (e.g. a linear accelerator), nor is it a Treatment Planning System (TPS). Mobius3D cannot design or transmit instructions to a delivery device, nor does it control any other medical device. Mobius3D is an analysis tool meant solely for quality assurance (QA) purposes when used by trained medical professionals. Being a software only QA tool, Mobius3D never comes into contact with patients.

It appears there's a misunderstanding based on the provided document. The request asks for acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device meets those criteria, including specifics like sample sizes, expert qualifications, and ground truth establishment.

However, the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for Mobius3D (4.1) does not contain the detailed performance study results that would prove the device meets specific acceptance criteria.

The 510(k) summary (pages 5-7) primarily discusses:

• Device Description and Intended Use: What Mobius3D is and what it's used for (QA, treatment plan verification, patient alignment).
• Comparison to Predicate Device: How Mobius3D 4.1 differs from 4.0.
• Summary of Performance Testing (Non-Clinical):
  • Mentions software verification and validation, including unit, integration, and end-to-end testing.
  • Highlights MLC Modelling Accuracy testing comparing different Mobius3D versions, measurements, and a Treatment Planning System (Eclipse TPS 16.1).
  • States that "studies and reviews have been performed to assess the accuracy of newly introduced features and modifications" for Rapid Arc Dynamic Support and MLC Tongue and Groove Modelling.
  • Notes conformance to cybersecurity and interoperability requirements.
  • Crucially, it explicitly states: "No animal studies or clinical tests have been included in this pre-market submission." This means there isn't a human-in-the-loop study or a study directly demonstrating clinical performance against ground truth in a clinical setting.
• Use of Consensus Standards: A list of standards the device's design and evaluation conform to.
• Determination of Substantial Equivalence: Varian's conclusion that the device is substantially equivalent to the predicate.

Therefore, many of the specific details requested (Table of acceptance criteria, sample sizes for test sets, number/qualifications of experts for ground truth, adjudication methods, MRMC study, standalone performance, type of ground truth, training set sample size/ground truth establishment) are NOT present in this 510(k) clearance letter.

The letter focuses on the regulatory submission process and the FDA's determination of substantial equivalence based on the provided non-clinical testing and comparison to a predicate device. It doesn't typically include the full, detailed study reports with precise performance metrics and ground truth methodologies. Such details would typically be found in the more extensive technical documentation submitted by the manufacturer to the FDA, but they are summarized at a high level in the public 510(k) summary.

In summary, based only on the provided text, I cannot provide the detailed information requested regarding the specific acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets those criteria in the format you've requested. The document indicates non-clinical software testing and accuracy assessments were performed but does not provide the specific metrics or study design details for clinical performance proof.

Ask a specific question about this device

The CT/MR Tandem and Ovoid Set is indicated for use for cancer treatment of the uterus, cervix, paracervix, endometrium, and vagina using HDR Brachytherapy.

{{overview}}

This FDA clearance letter describes a new device, the "CT/MR Tandem and Ovoid Set," but it does not describe a study involving AI or software performance evaluation. The document focuses on the substantial equivalence of this physical medical device (an applicator for brachytherapy) to a predicate device, primarily through mechanical, material, and compatibility testing.

Therefore, I cannot extract information related to acceptance criteria for AI model performance or a study proving that an AI device meets acceptance criteria, as the provided text doesn't contain such a study.

The document discusses:

• Biocompatibility Testing: Ensuring the materials are safe for patient contact.
• Magnetic Resonance Testing (MR): Confirming the device is MR safe/compatible.
• Cleaning, Disinfection, and Sterilization Testing: Verifying the device can be properly cleaned and sterilized for repeated use.
• Human Factors Validation Study: To ensure the device is user-friendly and performs as intended for its users and environment.
• Mechanical and Acoustic Testing: To demonstrate the device performs as intended and meets design specifications.

These tests are for the physical device's safety and effectiveness, not for an AI algorithm's diagnostic or predictive performance.

Therefore, I cannot fill in the requested table and details for AI-related performance.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intracavitary/Interstitial System is intended for cancer treatment of the uterus, cervix, and vagina using HDR or PDR brachytherapy.

The Intracavitary/Interstitial System is a device with two (2), hollow, open-ended catheters which connect to applicator sets with ovoids, ring caps or templates on the distal end.

The guide tubes extend outside of the patient. An interstitial needle is guided through the guide tube from outside the patient to an interstitial hole in the applicator. The proximal end of the guide tube contains a fixation mechanism for fixing the needle insertion depth between needle insertion and removal of the implant.

The Intracavitary/Interstitial System is intended to be used with the following required accessories: Plastic Needles (K120341) and Leak Stop Channel Markers (K152018).

I am sorry, but based on the provided FDA 510(k) clearance letter for the Intracavitary/Interstitial System (K250289), there is no information provided regarding acceptance criteria for device performance, nor is there a study described that proves the device meets such criteria in terms of clinical or algorithmic performance.

The document primarily focuses on:

• Administrative details of the 510(k) clearance: Device name, regulation number, product code, date of clearance, contact information.
• Device description and intended use: What the device is and what it's used for (brachytherapy for uterus, cervix, vagina).
• Comparison to a predicate device: Highlighting similarities in intended use, technological characteristics, materials, anatomical sites, MR compatibility, and use environment.
• Non-clinical performance testing: This section details engineering and safety tests like biocompatibility, cleaning/disinfection/sterilization, human factors, mechanical/acoustic, MR compatibility (physical properties under MR, not clinical performance), and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). It also lists various consensus standards followed during design and evaluation.

Specifically, the document does NOT contain any of the following information requested in your prompt:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance related to a clinical outcome or algorithmic performance metric. The "performance data" mentioned is exclusively for non-clinical, engineering, and safety assessments.
2. Sample size used for a test set or data provenance for any clinical performance evaluation. No clinical test set is described.
3. Number of experts, qualifications, or adjudication methods for establishing ground truth. This is relevant for studies involving human interpretation or AI performance assessment, which are not detailed here.
4. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study information or effect sizes.
5. Standalone (algorithm only) performance.
6. Type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc.) for a clinical or AI performance study.
7. Sample size for a training set or how ground truth was established for a training set. These are relevant for AI/ML device submissions, but this document describes a physical medical device, not an AI algorithm for diagnosis or treatment planning.

Conclusion:

The provided 510(k) letter demonstrates that the Intracavitary/Interstitial System (a physical medical device) has undergone various engineering, safety, and compatibility tests to show it is as safe and effective as its predicate. However, it does not detail any clinical performance study, nor does it refer to an AI/ML component where acceptance criteria for diagnostic/prognostic accuracy or human-in-the-loop performance would be relevant. The performance data presented are purely non-clinical validation steps for a hardware device.

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested tables or provide details on the study proving the device meets performance criteria in the way you've outlined, as that information is not present in the given text.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Titanium Flexible Geometry FSD Applicator Set with the optional interstitial ovoids is intended for cancer treatment of the uterus, cervix, paracervix, endometrium and vaqina, with intracavitary or with a combination of intracavitary and interstitial HDR brachytherapy.

The Titanium Flexible Geometry FSD Applicator Set with the optional interstitial ovoids is intended for cancer treatment of the uterus, cervix, paracervix, endometrium and vagina, with intracavitary or with a combination of intracavitary and interstitial HDR brachytherapy.

The device does not contain or consist of software/firmware. The device does not contain any biologics or drug components. The device has patient-contacting materials. The device is designed for repeated use. No parts of the system are provided sterile. The device can be steam sterilized with common parameters using pre-vacuum sterilization.

The intended patient population includes adult female patients whose cancer can be treated using HDR brachytherapy, as determined by the prescribing physician. The subject device is intended to be used in a healthcare or treatment facility by trained and qualified personnel.

The key performance characteristics of this applicator set are as follows:

• . The ability to customize the relative depth of the tandem and ovoids, as well as adapt to different anatomies with three tandem angles (15°, 30°, 45°) and a movable cervical stop.
• 3.5 mm diameter intrauterine tandems allow for easy insertion into the cervical channel helping provide maximum patient comfort.
• The tandems and the pivot assembly are made from strong, lightweight titanium.
• Four different ovoid sizes to allow for varying anatomy.
• . Channel marking on the intrauterine tandems and colpostat tandems for easy identification.
• . Ability to image the patient using CT imaging.
• Ability to image the patient using MR imaging.
• Optional interstitial ovoids for more complex cases with guide tubes to allow for the needles to be preloaded outside of the patient and locked into place.
• . Compatible with cervical sleeves to allow easy multiple fraction and help provide maximum patient comfort and eliminate the risk of perforation.
• Can be manually or machine cleaned, disinfected and steam sterilizable.
• Can be securely connected to the BRAVOS Afterloader System and GammaMedeplus iX series afterloader.
• Suitable for patient contact for a period of less than 30 days

This document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for the Titanium Flexible Geometry FSD Applicator Set (GM11013400). It does not describe an AI/ML powered device. The information provided focuses on the substantial equivalence to a predicate device through non-clinical performance testing. Therefore, many of the requested categories related to AI/ML device studies (such as MRMC studies, standalone algorithm performance, AI training/test sets, expert ground truth establishment, etc.) are not applicable to this submission.

Here is the information that can be extracted relevant to the performance and acceptance criteria for this medical device:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Test Set Sample Size: Not applicable. This submission concerns a physical medical device (applicator set), not an AI/ML model for data-driven analysis. Performance testing likely involved physical prototypes or units, but specific "sample sizes" in the context of data analysis are not presented.
• Data Provenance: Not applicable in the context of clinical data used for AI/ML development. The testing described is non-clinical (biocompatibility, MR compatibility, cleaning/sterilization, mechanical, human factors).

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

• Not applicable. Ground truth as typically defined for AI/ML (e.g., expert labels on medical images) is not relevant for the type of device and testing described. The "ground truth" for this device's performance is established by objective engineering and safety standards.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

• Not applicable. Adjudication is typically for resolving discrepancies in expert labels for AI/ML ground truth.

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

• No. This is not an AI-powered device.

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

• No. This is not an AI-powered device.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• The ground truth for this device's performance is based on objective engineering standards, regulatory requirements, and validated test methods. This includes:
  • Compliance with ISO 10993 for biocompatibility.
  • Compliance with ASTM standards for MR compatibility.
  • Demonstrated effectiveness for cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization.
  • Usability verification through human factors studies (IEC 62366).
  • Verification and validation against design specifications and risk management (21 CFR §820, ISO 13485, ISO 14971).

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

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

• Not applicable. This is not an AI/ML device.

Ask a specific question about this device

IDENTIFY is indicated for adult patients undergoing radiotherapy treatment simulation and/or delivery. IDENTIFY is indicated for positioning of patients, and for monitoring patient motion including respiratory patterns. It allows for data output to radiotherapy devices to synchronize image acquisition or treatment delivery with the acquired motion information.

IDENTIFY is a system for motion monitoring during radiotherapy treatment simulation and delivery. It incorporates patient safety, quality, and workflow efficiency. Its high precision SGRT cameras support proper patient positioning and enable to monitor the patient's respiratory motion and to detect intra-fraction patient position changes during the treatment.

The provided text does not contain detailed information about specific acceptance criteria or a dedicated study proving the device meets these criteria with reported performance metrics. The document is primarily a 510(k) summary for the IDENTIFY (4.0) device, outlining its intended use, description, and non-clinical testing for substantial equivalence to a predicate device.

Therefore, I cannot fulfill all parts of your request. I can, however, extract information about what non-clinical testing was conducted, which suggests certain underlying acceptance criteria related to safety, effectiveness, and performance against standards.

Here's what can be inferred and stated based on the provided text:

Acceptance Criteria and Study Information (Based on Inferred Information from Non-Clinical Testing Section):

The document does not present a table of explicit acceptance criteria with reported device performance in the format requested. Instead, it describes general compliance with standards and internal testing to ensure safety, effectiveness, and performance.

Inferred Acceptance Criteria from Non-Clinical Testing:

While not explicitly listed as a table of "acceptance criteria," the non-clinical testing section implies the device needed to meet the following:

• Conformance to Applicable Requirements Specifications: The device must meet its defined functional and performance specifications.
• Hazard Safeguards Functioning Properly: Safety mechanisms must work as intended.
• Software Compliance: Adherence to FDA's "Content of Premarket Submissions for Device Software Functions" guidance, specifically for a "major" level of concern.
• Electrical Safety: Compliance with IEC 60601-1 standards.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC): Compliance with IEC 60601-1-2 standard.
• Quality Management System: Adherence to ISO 13485.
• Risk Management: Adherence to ISO 14971.
• No Unresolved Anomalies: No Discrepancy Reports (DRs) with "Safety Intolerable" or "Customer Intolerable" priority remaining.
• Performance at least as well as Predicate Device: The device performs comparably in terms of safety and effectiveness to the IDENTIFY (K230576).

Reported Device Performance:

The document states: "Test results showed conformance to applicable requirements specifications and assured hazard safeguards functioned properly." And "The outcome was that the product conformed to the defined user needs and intended uses and that there were no DRs (discrepancy reports/Unresolved Anomalies) remaining which had a priority of Safety Intolerable or Customer Intolerable (applicable to the US)."

Missing Information:

The document does not provide the following details that would be typically found in a clinical study report or a more detailed performance evaluation:

• A specific table of quantitative acceptance criteria and corresponding numerical performance results.
• Details on a specific "study" with a test set, sample sizes for test or training sets, data provenance, expert qualifications, or ground truth establishment methods for a clinical or performance evaluation.
• Information on MRMC studies or a human-in-the-loop effect size.
• Information on standalone algorithm performance.

Summary of Available Information from the Text:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria (Inferred): Conformance to requirements, proper functioning of hazard safeguards, compliance with specific software guidances (FDA Software Functions guidance, "major" level of concern), electrical safety (IEC 60601-1), EMC (IEC 60601-1-2), Quality Management (ISO 13485), Risk Management (ISO 14971), and absence of critical unresolved anomalies (Safety Intolerable or Customer Intolerable DRs). Performance at least as well as the predicate device.
   • Reported Device Performance: "Test results showed conformance to applicable requirements specifications and assured hazard safeguards functioned properly." "The outcome was that the product conformed to the defined user needs and intended uses and that there were no DRs (discrepancy reports/Unresolved Anomalies) remaining which had a priority of Safety Intolerable or Customer Intolerable (applicable to the US)."

2. Sample sizes used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Not provided. The document refers to "hardware and software verification and validation testing" but does not specify sample sizes for a test set of patient data or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective). This often implies bench testing and software verification without a dedicated clinical performance study.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • Not provided. This information would be relevant for a clinical performance study using expert labels, which isn't detailed here.

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

   • Not provided.

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 provided. The document focuses on the device's own performance and substantial equivalence, not an MRMC study with human readers.

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

   • The "Non-clinical Testing" section refers to "hardware and software verification and validation testing," implying performance of the device's functions, which would be "standalone" in nature. However, specific metrics or a dedicated "standalone study" in terms of clinical performance are not detailed. It's more about technical compliance.

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

   • Not specified as a formal ground truth for a clinical dataset. The "ground truth" for the non-clinical testing likely refers to engineering specifications, established safety standards, and validated software requirements.

8. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not provided. Training set information is relevant for AI/ML devices, but IDENTIFY is described as a "system for motion monitoring," not explicitly an AI/ML diagnostic or predictive device in the traditional sense that would require a large training dataset with labeled ground truth of patient outcomes.

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

   • Not applicable/Not provided. As above, a specific training set with associated ground truth is not detailed, as this appears to be a traditional medical device verification and validation rather than an AI/ML model for clinical decision support.

Ask a specific question about this device

Embozene Color-Advanced Microspheres are intended for embolization of arteriovenous malformations and hypervascular tumors, including uterine fibroids (UFE) and hepatoma, and for embolization of prostatic arteries (PAE) for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The device is not intended for neurovascular use.

Embozene Color-Advanced Microspheres (hereafter may be referenced as Embozene Microspheres or Embozene) are spherical, tightly calibrated, biocompatible, non-resorbable, hydrogel microspheres coated with an inorganic perfluorinated polymer shell (Polyzene-F). The microspheres are suspended in liquid and then injected into the bloodstream to permanently occlude blood vessels. They are used to stop bleeding when the underlying lesion is not likely to heal or block arteries supplying a tumor to cause tumor necrosis and/or shrinkage. Embozene Color-Advanced Microspheres are sterile, single use devices and are supplied in pre-filled 20 ml syringes containing 2ml of microspheres in approximately 7 ml of transport solution. The Embozene Microspheres are available in 40-1300 µm sizes.

The provided text is a 510(k) Premarket Notification from the FDA regarding "Embozene Color-Advanced Microspheres". This submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than providing efficacy study data with acceptance criteria for a new device.

Therefore, the document does not contain the requested information regarding specific acceptance criteria, a study proving the device meets those criteria, or details regarding sample sizes, ground truth establishment, expert qualifications, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance.

The submission confirms that:

• The device is "substantially equivalent" to a legally marketed predicate device (K180102).
• The substantial equivalence is based on the devices having "the same indications for use and the same technological characteristics."
• The only change in the subject device is an "updated syringe due to end of life of the previously used syringe."
• Non-clinical testing (mechanical performance, biocompatibility, sterility, packaging, and shelf-life) was conducted to ensure the updated device meets the specifications of the predicate device.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Mould Probe MR Safe is intended for IORT, interstitial and intraluminal treatments of cancer and treatments of cancer or other superficial disease using HDR or PDR brachytherapy. IORT = Intraoperative Radiation Therapy.

The Mould Probe MR Safe is a Brachytherapy applicator. Brachytherapy is a form of radiotherapy using Gamma rays from a radioactive source placed at locations close to or within a tumor or other treatment area to a predefined treatment plan. The treatment plan defines the positions and times for the source to ensure the correct dose for the treatment area. The applicator acts to guide the radioactive source to the correct location or locations for treatment.

The Mould Probe MR Safe is intended for HDR or PDR brachytherapy and the key performance characteristics are as follows:

• Suitable for intraoperative, intraluminal, and interstitial brachytherapy.
• Can be used for surface treatments in combination with the suitable Varian flap.
• Equipped with stabilizing mandrins for easy insertion.
• MR Safe, if used without mandrins.
• CT compatible, if used without mandrins.
• Elastomer material construction provides increased flexibility for easy placement as well as luminal rigidity, which prevents kinks.
• Steam sterilizable.
• Suitable for patient contact for up to 24 hours. The stainless steel mandrins are not intended to have patient contact.

The provided text is a 510(k) premarket notification summary for the "Mould Probe MR Safe" device. It describes the device, its intended use, and its comparison to a predicate device. However, this document does not contain information about the acceptance criteria and performance study outcomes related to an AI/ML device.

The document states:

• "Software Verification and Validation Testing: This item is not applicable to the subject device. The devices do not contain or consist of software/firmware. No software verification and validation testing have been included in this submission in support of the substantial equivalence determination."

Therefore, I cannot extract the requested information about acceptance criteria and study that proves the device meets the acceptance criteria for an AI/ML device from the provided text. The device in question is a physical medical instrument (brachytherapy applicator), not one that relies on AI/ML for its function.

Ask a specific question about this device

The ARIA Radiation Therapy Management product is a treatment plan and image management application. It enables the authorized user to enter, access, modify, store and archive treatment plan and image data from diagnostic studies, treatment planning, simulation, plan verification and treatment. ARIA Radiation Therapy Management also stores the treatment histories including dose delivered to defined sites and provides tools to verify performed treatments.

ARIA Radiation Therapy Management (ARIA RTM) manages several treatment information such as images and treatment data to prepare plans created for treatment and review post-treatment images and records. It also provides quality assurance options. ARIA RTM does not directly act on the patient. ARIA RTM is applied by trained medical professionals in the process of preparation and management of radiotherapy treatments for patients.

The provided FDA 510(k) summary for ARIA Radiation Therapy Management System (18.1) does not contain the detailed information necessary to fully answer your request regarding acceptance criteria and the study proving device performance.

Here's a breakdown of what can be extracted and what is missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The submission states: "Test results demonstrate conformance to applicable requirements and specifications." However, it does not provide a specific table of acceptance criteria or reported device performance metrics. It implies that underlying V&V documentation exists that confirms the software meets its design requirements, but these details are not present in this summary.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance

The document states: "No animal studies or clinical tests have been included in this pre-market submission." This indicates that the validation was likely based on non-clinical software testing, not patient data. Therefore, there is no patient-specific test set sample size or data provenance (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) mentioned. The testing would have involved simulated data, test cases, or internal datasets to verify software functionalities.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts

Since the testing was non-clinical software verification and validation, there is no mention of experts establishing ground truth for a test set in the traditional sense of clinical evaluation. Software testing typically relies on predefined requirements, specifications, and expected outputs, rather than expert-adjudicated ground truth from medical images or patient cases.

4. Adjudication method for the test set

Similarly, because there are no clinical trials or expert-adjudicated test sets, there is no adjudication method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1) described.

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

The document explicitly states: "No animal studies or clinical tests have been included in this pre-market submission." Therefore, no MRMC comparative effectiveness study was conducted or reported for this submission. The device is a radiation therapy management system, not explicitly an AI-assisted diagnostic tool for human readers.

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

The submission indicates that the software underwent "Software Verification and Validation Testing" and was considered a "major" level of concern. This implies extensive standalone algorithm (software) testing to ensure it meets its functional and safety requirements. However, specific details of these tests (e.g., test cases, scenarios, and their results) are not provided in this summary. The device "does not directly act on the patient" and is "applied by trained medical professionals," suggesting it's an assistive tool within a human workflow, but its core functionalities are tested in a standalone manner.

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

Given the non-clinical nature of the testing, the "ground truth" would have been established by the software requirements and specifications, test case design, and expected outputs defined by the developers. This is typical for software verification and validation, where the goal is to confirm the software performs as designed.

8. The sample size for the training set

The submission does not mention any training set as there is no indication of machine learning or AI models with external data training involved that would require such information. The changes appear to be feature enhancements to an existing software system.

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

As no training set is mentioned, this information is not applicable.

In summary, the provided document focuses on the regulatory aspects of a software update (v18.1) to an existing device (v18.0) and highlights software verification and validation as the primary evidence of performance. It explicitly states that no clinical or animal studies were included. Therefore, the detailed performance metrics, test set characteristics, and expert involvement typically associated with clinical efficacy studies are not present.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Eclipse Treatment Planning System (Eclipse TPS) is used to plan radiotherapy treatments for patients with malignant or benign diseases. Eclipse TPS is used to plan external beam irradiation with photon, electron and proton beams, as well as for internal radiation (brachytherapy) treatments.

Eclipse provides software tools for planning the treatment of malignant or benign diseases with radiation. Eclipse is a computer-based software device used by trained medical professionals to design and simulate radiation therapy treatments. It is capable of planning treatments for external beam irradiation with photon, electron, and proton beams, as well as for internal irradiation (brachytherapy) treatments.

Eclipse is used for planning external beam radiation therapy treatments employing photon energies between 1 and 50 MV, electron energies between 1 and 50 MeV, for proton energies between 50 and 300 MeV, and for planning internal radiation (brachytherapy) treatments with any clinically approved radioisotope. The treatment planning system utilizes a patient model or virtual patient derive from medical imaging techniques to simulate, calculate and optimize the radiation dose distribution inside the body during a treatment procedure in order to ensure effective treatment of the tumor but to minimize damage to surrounding tissue.

The provided document is a 510(k) premarket notification letter from the FDA regarding the Eclipse Treatment Planning System (18.1). It primarily addresses the substantial equivalence of the new version to a legally marketed predicate device (Eclipse Treatment Planning System 18.0).

Unfortunately, this document does not contain the detailed information required to describe acceptance criteria and a study proving the device meets those criteria, as requested in your prompt.

Here's why and what information is missing:

• No specific acceptance criteria table or performance metrics: The document states that "Test results demonstrate conformance to applicable requirements and specifications," but it does not list what those requirements or specifications are (the acceptance criteria), nor does it provide a table of reported device performance against those criteria.
• No information on clinical studies or human-in-the-loop performance: The document explicitly states, "No animal studies or clinical tests have been included in this pre-market submission." This immediately tells us that there was no MRMC study, no standalone performance study in a clinical context, and no ground truth established from patient outcomes or expert consensus for such a study.
• Focus on software V&V and equivalence to predicate: The "Summary of Performance Testing (Non-Clinical Testing)" section primarily references software verification and validation (V&V) activities (unit, integration, system testing) and measurement comparison tests using Gamma evaluation criteria and plan comparisons using clinical objectives and workflow testing to show comparability to the predicate. These are engineering and software quality assurance tests, not clinical performance studies with defined acceptance metrics for AI/algorithm performance.
• No mention of AI/algorithm specific performance: The document describes "RapidArc Dynamic" as an "improved optimization algorithm," but it does not treat it as a distinct AI algorithm requiring specific clinical performance validation against a ground truth as one might expect for a diagnostic or prognostic AI tool. The testing mentioned appears to be related to the accuracy and efficiency of the planning output compared to the predicate, rather than the performance of an AI model in a diagnostic or assistive capacity.
• No details on sample size, data provenance, expert ground truth, or adjudication: Because no clinical performance study was conducted or reported, all these details are consequently missing.

In summary, the provided document focuses on regulatory compliance, substantial equivalence to a predicate device, and general software V&V, rather than providing the detailed clinical performance study information you are asking for, which is typical for AI/ML-driven diagnostic or prognostic devices seeking regulatory clearance.

The "Eclipse Treatment Planning System" is a software tool used by trained medical professionals to design and simulate radiation therapy treatments. While it includes "optimization algorithms" (like RapidArc Dynamic), the FDA submission treats these changes as enhancements to an existing system, validated through engineering and software testing for comparability, rather than a novel AI/ML device requiring an independent clinical performance study as outlined in your prompt questions.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Intraluminal Applicator Set is intended for intraluminal brachytherapy treatments including endobronchial treatments and treatments on body sites such as the bile duct using HDR brachytherapy.

The Intraluminal Applicator Set is intended for intrapy treatments including endobronchial treatments and treatments on body sites such as the esophagus and the bile duct using HDR brachytherapy.

The Intraluminal Applicator Set acts to guide the radioactive source to the correct location for treatment.

Key performance characteristics are as follows:

• . Suitable for treating body sites allowing insertion of a catheter.
• CT compatible. ●
• MR Compatibility: Safe. ●
• Fits a 2 mm diameter bronchoscope biopsy channel allowing for easy insertion.
• Elastomer construction provides increased flexibility for easy placement and luminal rigidity to avoid kinks. ●
• Nylon monofil adds luminal stability during catheter insertion and manipulation. ●
• Comes with 2.8 mm spacing tubes, which minimize surface dose. .
• . Spacing tubes enable secure placement during treatment.
• The bronchial catheter and monofil are supplied sterile, and for single use.
• . The guide tubes, the bronchial catheter, the bite catheters are intended for continuous use for less than 24 hours of contact with patients.

The provided document is a 510(k) Premarket Notification for a medical device called the "Intraluminal Applicator Set." This type of submission focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than conducting effectiveness studies with explicit acceptance criteria and performance metrics.

Therefore, the document does not contain the detailed information requested regarding acceptance criteria for device performance, the specific study design to prove those criteria (like sample sizes for test/training sets, data provenance, number/qualifications of experts, adjudication methods, MRMC studies, or standalone algorithm performance), or the type of ground truth used.

Instead, the document details non-clinical testing performed to establish the device's safety and effectiveness in comparison to its predicate. The "Summary of Performance Testing (Non-Clinical Testing)" section outlines the types of tests conducted:

• Biocompatibility Testing: Confirms the compatibility of skin-contact components with requirements as per ISO 10993-1. Specific tests included Hypersensitivity, Material Mediated Pyrogen, and Acute Systemic Toxicity.
• Cleaning, Disinfection, and Sterilization Testing: Verifies that components can be effectively sterilized and reused for the specified number of times.
• Human Factors Validation Study: Conducted according to IEC 62366 to ensure the device is safe and effective for intended users, uses, and environments.
• Mechanical and Acoustic Testing: Formal design validation testing to demonstrate the device performs as intended.
• Magnetic Resonance Testing (MR): Confirms the device is MR Safe, complying with ASTM F2503-23.
• Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Testing: Assessed against IEC 60601-2-17 to demonstrate compatibility in an electromagnetic setting.

The "Determination of Substantial Equivalence to the Predicate" section states: "The results of verification as well as conformance to relevant safety standards demonstrate that the safety and performance criteria." This implies that the 'acceptance criteria' for this submission are met when the device successfully passes these non-clinical tests and conforms to the listed standards.

Without the specific details of a clinical performance study with acceptance criteria, I cannot complete the requested tables and information as described in the prompt. The document is a regulatory submission for substantial equivalence based on technical and safety characteristics, not a clinical efficacy trial.

Ask a specific question about this device