Search Results

Verification Console is designed to assist the operator of a proton radiation therapy device. Verification Console retrieves treatment plans from an oncology information system (OIS) and sends plans to the treatment device's treatment control system (TCS). Verification Console then performs verification of treatment plan parameters against TCS delivery parameters for accuracy prior to beam authorization, and sends the treatment history for recording to the OIS.

Verification Console is designed to perform an interface role to connect to proton therapy control systems. The general function of the Verification Console is to allow treatment plans and images to be retrieved from the Varian Oncology Information System and sent to the device's treatment control system (TCS), planned treatment plan parameters to be verified against the TCS delivery parameters for accuracy, and treatment history to be recorded in the Varian Oncology Information System for use and display throughout ARIA and Eclipse. ARIA and Eclipse are separately cleared devices from Varian Medical System.

The provided text describes a "Verification Console" device, but it lacks detailed information about acceptance criteria, a specific study proving device performance against those criteria, or most of the other requested elements for summarizing a device study. The document is primarily a 510(k) summary for regulatory approval, focusing on substantial equivalence to a predicate device rather than presenting a performance study with detailed metrics.

Based on the available information:

1. Table of acceptance criteria and reported device performance: This information is not provided in the document. The document states "Results of verification and validation testing showed conformance to applicable requirements specifications and assured hazard safeguards functioned properly," but it doesn't list the specific requirements, their acceptance criteria, or quantitative performance results.

2. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance: Not specified. The document mentions "verification and validation testing" in a general sense but does not detail a test set, its size, or its provenance.

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts: Not applicable or specified. Given the device's function (interfacing between systems and verifying parameters), "ground truth" in the traditional sense of medical image interpretation by experts is not directly relevant. There's no mention of experts establishing a ground truth for any test set.

4. Adjudication method: Not applicable or specified.

5. Multi-reader multi-case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study: No, an MRMC study was not done. The device is not an AI/CAD device for diagnostic interpretation; therefore, an MRMC study to assess human reader improvement with AI assistance is not relevant to this device's function.

6. Standalone performance study (algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance): The document doesn't detail a standalone performance study with specific metrics. The device's function (verification of treatment plan parameters against delivery parameters) is inherently a "human-in-the-loop" assistance tool, not a standalone diagnostic algorithm. The summary broadly states that the "functionality of both devices is equivalent in safety and effectiveness," referring to the predicate device.

7. Type of ground truth used: Not explicitly stated or applicable in the traditional sense. For a device that verifies treatment plan parameters against delivery parameters, the "ground truth" would likely be the actual, correct delivery parameters and system states, which are intrinsically digital and rule-based, rather than subjective expert interpretations or pathology. The document doesn't elaborate on how this "ground truth" was established for testing.

8. Sample size for the training set: Not applicable or specified. The device is not described as an AI/machine learning model that undergoes a training phase.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established: Not applicable, as there is no mention of a training set for an AI/ML model.

Summary of what is available regarding verification and validation:

The document states: "Results of verification and validation testing showed conformance to applicable requirements specifications and assured hazard safeguards functioned properly."

This general statement indicates that Varian Medical Systems, Inc. performed internal testing to ensure the "Verification Console" met its design requirements and safety standards. However, the specific protocols, metrics, sample sizes, and detailed outcomes of these tests are not provided in this 510(k) summary. The summary's focus is on establishing substantial equivalence to the predicate "Varian Treatment" device, primarily through comparing their intended use and technological characteristics (e.g., supporting proton vs. photon delivery, interface type).

Ask a specific question about this device