Search Results

The Vysis D7S486/CEP 7 FISH Probe Kit is a device intended for specimen characterization, and detects the LSI D7S486 probe target on chromosome 7q31 and the CEP 7 probe target on chromosome 7p11.1-q11.1 in bone marrow and peripheral blood specimens from patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome. The assay results are intended to be interpreted by a qualified pathologist or cytogeneticist. This device is not intended for high-risk uses such as selecting therapy, predicting therapeutic response or disease screening. The use of this device for diagnosis, prognosis, monitoring or risk assessment has not been established.

The Vysis D7S486/CEP 7 FISH Probe Kit is for specimen characterization and detects the LSI D7S486 (7q31) probe target on chromosome 7q31 and CEP 7 probe target chromosome 7p11.1-q11.1 in bone marrow and peripheral blood specimens.

DNA Probe Description

Vysis LSI D7S486 SpectrumOrange/ CEP 7 SpectrumGreen Probes:

The SpectrumOrange labeled LSI D7S486 probe is approximately 308 kb in length (chr7:115983468-115675366; February 2009 Assembly UCSC Human Genome Browser).

The SpectrumGreen labeled CEP 7 probe targets the D7Z1 alpha satellite sequence at the centromere of chromosome 7.

The Vysis D7S486/CEP 7 FISH Probe Kit (List No. 04N78-020) consists of a mixture of two DNA FISH probes and four general reagents sufficient to process 20 assays.

• . Vysis LSI D7S486 SpectrumOrange/ CEP 7 SpectrumGreen Probes
• . Vysis LSI/WCP Hybridization Buffer
• . DAPI II Counterstain
• NP-40 .
• . 20X SSC

The Vysis D7S486/CEP 7 FISH Probe Kit is designed for specimen characterization, specifically detecting the LSI D7S486 probe target on chromosome 7q31 and the CEP 7 probe target on chromosome 7p11.1-q11.1 in bone marrow and peripheral blood specimens from patients with acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome.

Here's an analysis of the acceptance criteria and the study that proves the device meets them:

1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance

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

• Analytical Specificity: 4 male and 1 female karyotypically normal specimen slides.
• Analytical Sensitivity and Verification of Upper Reference Limit: 25 bone marrow and 25 peripheral blood specimens. These were from either karyotypically normal individuals or patients lacking monosomy 7 and loss of 7q. The provenance is not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin, retrospective/prospective).
• Reproducibility (Site-to-Site & Lot-to-Lot): The panel members for the reproducibility studies were prepared by mixing positive cells with normal cells. The exact number of individual patient samples from which these positive and normal cells originated is not specified. The study used 2 high-positive, 2 low-positive, and 2 negative panel members for each specimen type (bone marrow and peripheral blood). The data provenance is not specified as retrospective or prospective, nor is the country of origin explicitly mentioned.

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

• Analytical Specificity: 1 technologist for evaluating metaphase chromosomes.
• Analytical Sensitivity and Verification of Upper Reference Limit: 2 technologists for evaluating interphase nuclei.
• Reproducibility: The ground truth for the reproducibility studies (negative, low positive, high positive categories) was established by mixing positive cells with normal cells to achieve desired levels of positivity, implying a predefined "known status" based on these mixtures. The expertise used to determine the initial "positive cells" or "normal cells" is not detailed.

The qualifications of these technologists/experts are not explicitly stated (e.g., years of experience, specific certifications like "radiologist with 10 years of experience").

4. Adjudication Method (e.g., 2+1, 3+1, none) for the Test Set

For Analytical Sensitivity and Verification of Upper Reference Limit, the document states that each technologist evaluated 100 nuclei per specimen, implying independent scoring. There is no mention of an adjudication method (like 2+1 or 3+1) if scores differed between the two technologists, nor is an adjudication method specified for other tests.

5. If a Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study was Done, What Was the Effect Size of How Much Human Readers Improve with AI vs. Without AI Assistance?

No MRMC comparative effectiveness study was done. This device is a FISH probe kit, not an AI-assisted diagnostic tool. Therefore, there is no discussion of human reader improvement with or without AI assistance.

6. If a Standalone (i.e., algorithm only without human-in-the-loop performance) Was Done?

This is a laboratory diagnostic kit (FISH probe) that requires human interpretation (a qualified pathologist or cytogeneticist). Therefore, a standalone algorithm-only performance assessment is not applicable and was not performed. The performance studies evaluate the kit's analytical characteristics.

7. The Type of Ground Truth Used (Expert Consensus, Pathology, Outcomes Data, etc.)

• Analytical Specificity: Karyotypically normal specimens were used, with the "correct locus" pre-defined based on known chromosomal locations.
• Analytical Sensitivity and Verification of Upper Reference Limit: Karyotypically normal individuals or patients lacking the specific abnormalities (monosomy 7 and loss of 7q) were used. The expected typical signal pattern (2R2G) served as the ground truth for normalcy. The "atypical" patterns (1R1G, 1R2G) were defined based on the biological expectation of monosomy 7 or 7q deletion.
• Reproducibility: The ground truth for the panel members was established by preparing mixtures of positive and normal cells to achieve predefined "negative," "low positive," and "high positive" statuses. The origin of the "positive cells" would implicitly be from samples with confirmed deletion 7q or monosomy 7, likely established through standard cytogenetic or FISH methods.

8. The Sample Size for the Training Set

This document describes a diagnostic kit and its analytical validation. It does not refer to a machine learning or AI algorithm development pipeline, so there is no specific mention of a "training set" in the context of algorithm development. The studies performed are for analytical validation.

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

As there is no mention of a "training set" for an algorithm, this question is not applicable. The kit is based on established FISH technology, and its performance is validated through analytical studies.

Ask a specific question about this device