Search Results

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