Search Results

Transpara software is intended for use as a concurrent reading aid for physicians interpreting screening full-field digital mammography exams and digital breast tomosynthesis exams from compatible FFDM and DBT systems, to identify regions suspicious for breast cancer and assess their likelihood of malignancy. Output of the device includes locations of calcifications groups and soft-tissue regions, with scores indicating the likelihood that cancer is present, and an exam score indicating the likelihood that cancer is present in the exam. Patient management decisions should not be made solely on the basis of analysis by Transpara.

Transpara is a software only application designed to be used by physicians to improve interpretation of full-field digital mammography (FFMD) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). Deep learning algorithms are applied to images for recognition of suspicious calcifications and soft tissue lesions (including densities, masses, architectural distortions, and asymmetries). Algorithms are trained with a large database of biopsy-proven examples of breast cancer, benign abnormalities, and examples of normal tissue.

Transpara offers the following functions which may be used at any time in the reading process, to improve detection and characterization of abnormalities and enhance workflow:

• AI findings for display in the images to highlight locations where the device detects suspicious calcifications or soft tissue lesions, along with region scores per finding on a scale ranging from 1-100, with higher scores indicating a higher level of suspicion.
• Links between corresponding regions in different views of the breast, which may be utilized to enhance user interfaces and workflow.
• An exam-based score which categorizes exams with increasing likelihood of cancer on a scale of 1-10 or in three risk categories labeled as 'low', 'intermediate' or 'elevated'.

The concurrent use indication implies that it is up to the users to decide how to use Transpara in the reading process. Transpara functions can be used before, during or after visual interpretation of an exam by a user.

Results of Transpara are computed in a standalone processing appliance which accepts mammograms in DICOM format as input, processes them, and sends the processing output to a destination using the DICOM protocol in a standardized mammography CAD DICOM format. Common destinations are medical workstations, PACS and RIS. The system can be configured using a service interface. Implementation of a user interface for end users in a medical workstation is to be provided by third parties.

The provided text describes the acceptance criteria and a study that proves the device, Transpara (2.1.0), meets these criteria.

Here's an organized breakdown of the information requested:

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

The acceptance criteria are implicitly defined by the reported performance metrics. The study aims to demonstrate non-inferiority and superiority to the predicate device, Transpara 1.7.2. The key metrics reported are sensitivity at various specificity levels and Exam-based Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC).

Table 1: Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Performance Goals) and Reported Device Performance (Standalone without Temporal Analysis)

Table 2: Acceptance Criteria (Implied by Performance Goals) and Reported Device Performance (Standalone with Temporal Analysis - TA)

Study Details

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

   • Main Test Set (without temporal analysis): 10,207 exams (5,730 FFDM, 4,477 DBT).
     • Normal: 8,587 exams
     • Benign: 270 exams
     • Cancer: 1,350 exams (750 FFDM, 600 DBT)
   • Temporal Analysis Test Set: 5,724 exams (4,266 FFDM, 1,458 DBT).
     • Normal: 4,998 exams
     • Benign: 83 exams
     • Cancer: 643 exams (471 FFDM, 172 DBT)
   • Data Provenance: Independent dataset acquired from multiple centers in seven EU countries and the US. Retrospective in nature, as it was acquired and not used for algorithm development and included normal exams with at least one year follow-up. The data included images from various manufacturers (Hologic, GE, Philips, Siemens, Fujifilm).

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

   • The document states that the cancer cases in the test set were "biopsy-proven cancer." It does not specify the number or qualifications of experts used to establish the ground truth for the entire test set (including normal and benign cases, and detailed lesion characteristics). The mechanism for establishing the "normal" and "benign" status is not explicitly detailed beyond "normal follow-up of at least one year."

3. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:

   • The document does not explicitly describe an adjudication method involving multiple readers for establishing ground truth for the test set. The ground truth for cancer cases is stated as "biopsy-proven."

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

   • No, the document does not describe a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study. The performance assessment is a standalone evaluation of the algorithm's performance, not a human-in-the-loop study comparing human readers with and without AI assistance.

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

   • Yes, standalone performance tests were conducted. The results presented in Tables 2 and 5 are for the algorithm's performance only.

6. The Type of Ground Truth Used:

   • The primary ground truth for cancer cases is biopsy-proven cancer. For normal exams within the test set, the ground truth was established by "a normal follow-up of at least one year," implying outcomes data (absence of diagnosed cancer over a follow-up period).

7. The Sample Size for the Training Set:

   • The document does not explicitly state the sample size of the training set. It mentions "Deep learning algorithms are applied to images for recognition of suspicious calcifications and soft tissue lesions... Algorithms are trained with a large database of biopsy-proven examples of breast cancer, benign abnormalities, and examples of normal tissue."

8. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:

   • The ground truth for the training set was established using a "large database of biopsy-proven examples of breast cancer, benign abnormalities, and examples of normal tissue." This implies a similar methodology to the test set for cancer cases (biopsy verification) and likely clinical follow-up or expert consensus for benign/normal cases, though not explicitly detailed for the training set.

Ask a specific question about this device