Search Results

The Biopsy Digit S and SL are intended to be used for mammographic procedures requiring stereotactic guidance, such as fine needle aspiration, needle biopsy and guide wire placement.

The Biopsy Digit S and Biopsy Digit SL are modifications to the Biopsy Digit AM needle guidance system. previously cleared as #K062039. and supplied as an accessory to the Giotto Image 3D/DL mammography system. The CMOS digital camera used on the Biopsy Digit AM is not used on the Biopsy Digit S/SL. Rather a 65mm (high) X 80mm (wide) portion of the full field amorphous selenium detector of the Giotto Image 3D/DL is used to acquire the mammographic, targeting, image data. The mechanics, cleanable surfaces, on-board electronics, and user interface software are all the same as on the biopsy Digit AM. The Biopsy Digit S/SL receives power from the Giotto Image 3D/DL. The Biopsy Digit S/SL in conjunction with the Giotto Image 3D/DL, take two exposures at separate angles ± 22.6° from the perpendicular of the digital detector centerline. The x-ray tube is driven first to one side of center and then to the other by an electro-mechanical mechanism, which is an integral part of the Giotto Image 3D/3DL, so that a stereo pair of images can be acquired. The two views provide two separate 2dimensional projections of the subject anatomy. The two views are stored in the computer system, and can be retrieved and viewed on the computer monitor. The operator, using a mouse, identifies the region of interest on the monitor. The computer then calculates of the region of interest in three dimensions, using trigonometry, and then transfers the coordinates to the needle-positioning unit. The software algorithm used for the calculation is identical to that used by the Biopsy Digit AM (#K062039). The needle-positioning unit then drives the needle holder to the required location so that the operator can insert the needle or locating wire into the exact coordinates necessary.

The provided 510(k) summary for the Giotto Biopsy Digit S/SL does not contain explicit acceptance criteria or a detailed study description with specific performance metrics and statistical analyses typically associated with proving a device meets acceptance criteria.

The document describes the device as a modification of a previously cleared device (Biopsy Digit AM) and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence through non-clinical testing. It highlights changes in the detector technology (from CMOS to an amorphous selenium detector) and confirms that the mechanics and software algorithms remain the same.

However, based on the information provided, here's what can be inferred and what is explicitly missing:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

This information is not provided in the document. There is no mention of the number of images, cases, or subjects used in any of the described tests. The provenance of any data (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective) is also not stated.

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

This information is not provided. The document mentions "end user validation testing," but does not specify how many users participated, their qualifications, or how any "ground truth" for this validation was established. For stereotactic accuracy testing, the "ground truth" would likely be derived from physical measurements against a known standard, not expert consensus.

4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set

This information is not provided. Given the nature of the testing described (comparative image parameters, stereotactic accuracy, end-user validation), an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1 expert consensus) is unlikely to be directly applicable in the way it would be for diagnostic AI performance. For end-user validation, feedback mechanisms would be used, but the specific method is not detailed.

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

A Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was not performed or described in this 510(k) submission. The device is a needle guidance system, not a diagnostic AI intended to assist human readers in interpretation. Therefore, assessing how human readers improve with or without AI assistance is not relevant to this device's function as described.

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

Standalone performance, especially for the "software algorithm used for the calculation" of the region of interest in three dimensions, was implicitly tested. The document states:

• "Stereotactic accuracy testing for both biopsy systems in compliance with IEC Standard 60601-2-45"
  This testing would assess the accuracy of the system (including the algorithm) in guiding the needle, independent of a specific human operator's interpretation. However, specific results of this standalone accuracy are not provided. The document emphasizes that "The software algorithm used for the calculation is identical to that used by the Biopsy Digit AM (#K062039)," relying on the previous clearance for the algorithm's validation.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used

• For Image Parameter Testing: Likely objective measures derived from test phantoms or calibrated imaging standards.
• For Stereotactic Accuracy Testing: Established through physical measurements against known targets or a gold standard measurement device, as per IEC Standard 60601-2-45.
• For End User Validation: Likely user feedback and possibly a demonstration of successful task completion based on the device's intended use.
• For Compliance with Standards: Objective verification against the requirements of the specified IEC standards.

The document does not explicitly state the exact nature of the ground truth for each test, but it can be inferred from the type of testing.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This information is not applicable / not provided. The device is an accessory for stereotactic guidance, not a machine learning or AI algorithm that requires a training set in the conventional sense. The "software algorithm" for coordinate calculation is stated to be "identical" to the predicate device, implying it was developed and validated previously, not "trained" in this submission.

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

This information is not applicable / not provided for the same reasons as #8. If the "software algorithm" for coordinate calculation was developed using any form of historical data or training, those details are not within this 510(k) submission. The submission relies on the previous clearance (K062039) for the validation of this specific algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Biopsy Digit-AM is intended to be used for mammographic procedures requiring stereotactic guidance, such as fine needle aspiration, needle biopsy, and guide wire placement.

The BIOPSY DIGIT-AM device uses two stereo images taken by a digital solid state camera to determine the location of a lesion in three dimensions. Once the coordinates of the lesion are determined by the BIOPSY DIGIT-AM they are used to position a needle holder such that when the physician inserts the needle or guide-wire, the tip will be precisely positioned at the pre-determined coordinates.

The provided text describes a medical device called BIOPSY DIGIT-AM, which is a mammographic system intended for stereotactic guidance in breast biopsy procedures. However, the document is a 510(k) summary for regulatory clearance and focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device (BIOPSY DIGIT).

It does not contain information about specific acceptance criteria, a detailed study proving performance against those criteria, or the typical elements of an AI/algorithm-focused performance study. The document primarily asserts equivalence based on "materials used, technology applied, and functional methodology" and states that "Differences of note do not affect safety and effectiveness of the device, intended use, or application methods."

Therefore, I cannot populate the requested table and answer many of the questions directly from the provided text. The document is about a mechanical/imaging system rather than an AI or algorithm-driven diagnostic tool that would typically have the kind of performance metrics you've asked for.

Here's an attempt to address your request based on the absence of information and the nature of the device described:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:
Not provided. The document describes a physical medical device, not an AI/algorithm trained on a dataset. Substantial equivalence for such devices often relies on engineering specifications and preclinical testing, rather than large clinical test sets with ground truth labels in the way AI algorithms do.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:
Not applicable. No ground truth establishment by experts for a test set is described, as this is not an AI/algorithm performance study.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set:
Not applicable. No expert adjudication for a test set is 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:
Not applicable. This device is a stereotactic guidance system, not an AI assistant for human readers. No MRMC study is mentioned.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done:
Not applicable. The device is a "System Mammographic" and "uses two stereo images... to determine the location of a lesion." While it uses a calculated determination, it's a physical system for guidance, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm. Its function is to determine coordinates for physical needle placement, which is then performed by a physician.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc):
Not applicable in the context of an AI/algorithm performance study. For a stereotactic biopsy device, the "ground truth" would implicitly be the actual pathological confirmation of the lesion's presence and type, and the device's accuracy would be measured by how closely the needle tip reaches the target. However, no such specific study or ground truth methodology for performance validation is described in this document.

8. The sample size for the training set:
Not applicable. This is not an AI/algorithm that undergoes a training phase with a dataset.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established:
Not applicable.

Summary of what the document does indicate regarding "performance":

• Principle of Operation: It works like human binocular vision to determine 3D coordinates from two stereo X-ray images.
• Intended Use: Identical to the predicate device (BIOPSY DIGIT, K990192) for mammographic stereotactic guidance (fine needle aspiration, needle biopsy, guide wire placement).
• Substantial Equivalence: The BIOPSY DIGIT-AM is described as substantially equivalent to the predicate BIOPSY DIGIT in "materials used, technology applied, and functional methodology." The submission asserts that "differences of note do not affect safety and effectiveness of the device, intended use, or application methods."
• Performance Claim: The device "performs as well as the predicate BIOPSY DIGIT." The predicate itself was implicitly deemed safe and effective for its intended use through its prior clearance.

In essence, this 510(k) submission is a declaration of equivalence to an already cleared device, arguing that the new device has no new questions of safety or effectiveness. It does not present novel performance data against specific, defined acceptance criteria in the way a new AI algorithm might.

Ask a specific question about this device

The intended uses of the Biopsy Digit are mammographic procedures requiring stereotactic guidance, such as fine needle aspiration, needle biopsy and guide wire placement. The intended uses are identical to those of the predicate device.

The Biopsy-Digit device uses two stereo images taken by a digital solid state camera to determine the location of a lesion in three dimensions. Once the coordinates of the lesion are determined by the Biopsy-Digit they are used to position a needle holder such that when the physician inserts the needle or guide-wire, the tip will be precisely positioned at the pre-determined coordinates.

The provided text does not contain specific acceptance criteria or a detailed study proving the device meets them. It describes the device's function, intended use, and substantial equivalence to a predicate device, but lacks the quantitative performance data needed to populate the requested table and answer several questions about a performance study.

Therefore, many of the requested fields will state "Not available in the provided text."

Here's a breakdown based on the available information:

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

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

• Sample Size (Test Set): Not available in the provided text.
• Data Provenance: Not available in the provided text.

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)

• Number of Experts: Not available in the provided text.
• Qualifications of Experts: Not available in the provided text.

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

• Adjudication Method: Not available in the provided text. The document focuses on the mechanical and functional equivalence of the device, not on diagnostic performance where adjudication would be relevant.

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

• MRMC Study: Not available in the provided text. The device is a stereotactic guidance system, not an AI-powered image analysis tool that would typically be evaluated in an MRMC study for reader improvement.
• Effect Size: Not applicable, as no MRMC study is mentioned.

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

• Standalone Performance Study: Not available in the provided text. The device is described as a system that facilitates a physician's procedure, implying human-in-the-loop operation, rather than a standalone AI algorithm.

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

• Type of Ground Truth: Not available in the provided text. The submission focuses on the mechanical accuracy of the device in determining lesion location and guiding a needle, rather than a diagnostic outcome where "ground truth" (e.g., pathology) would typically be established for diagnostic accuracy.

8. The sample size for the training set

• Sample Size (Training Set): Not applicable. The device described appears to be a mechanical device based on "human binocular vision" principles, rather than a machine learning model that requires a training set.

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

• Ground Truth Establishment (Training Set): Not applicable, as the device does not appear to be a machine learning model requiring a training set.

Ask a specific question about this device