Search Results

The Strome-Blitzer Cytology Balloon device is indicated for use in the 4-quadrant collection and retrieval of surface cells from the esophagus in adults (22 years of age or older). The device may be delivered transorally under direct endoscopic visualization.

The Strome-Blitzer Cytology Balloon is an inflatable biopsy platform. It consists of a catheter with a silicone balloon at its distal end. The balloon has 6 collection pleats on its surface. Inside each pleat are 2 cytology collection strips for specimen collection. While the balloon is uninflated, the strips are covered by the balloon pleats. When inflated, the strips are exposed. The balloon inflates and deflates with the use of a syringe and attached catheter, and is a sterile, single-use device. There are 4 location indicator dots on the proximal balloon surface for orientation during esophagoscopy.

The provided text describes a medical device, the "Strome-Blitzer Cytology Balloon," and its 510(k) premarket notification to the FDA. The information focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device, rather than proving the device meets specific acceptance criteria in the context of an AI/ML algorithm. Therefore, many of the requested details, such as the effect size of human reader improvement with AI assistance, sample sizes for training sets of AI, or ground truth for AI model development, are not present in this document.

However, I can extract the acceptance criteria and study details related to the device's performance as described in the provided text.

Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance (Device-Specific, not AI/ML):

Study Details:

1. Sample size used for the test set and the data provenance:

   • Test Set Sample Size: 6 swine.
   • Data Provenance: Not explicitly stated (e.g., country of origin), but the study was an "Animal Study," implying prospective data collection specifically for this evaluation.

2. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts:

   • The document implies that "cytologic examination" was performed to evaluate the samples. However, it does not state the number of experts used, nor their specific qualifications, for establishing the ground truth of "diagnostically useful cytology samples of high cellularity" or "morphologically comparable."

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

   • The document does not describe any adjudication method for the evaluation of cytology samples from the animal study.

4. 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:

   • No. This was a study comparing a new medical device (a cytology balloon) to a reference device (a cytology brush) in an animal model, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring human reader performance improvement metrics.

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

   • No. This is a physical medical device, not an algorithm.

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

   • The ground truth appear to be based on cytologic examination of the collected samples, which implies expert evaluation (likely by pathologists or cytotechnologists). The document states "cytologic examination... resulted in diagnostically useful cytology samples of high cellularity that were morphologically comparable..." This suggests an expert assessment of the cellular quality and morphology.

7. The sample size for the training set:

   • Not applicable. This is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm requiring a training set.

8. How the ground truth for the training set was established:

   • Not applicable. As above, this is a physical device, not an AI/ML algorithm.

Ask a specific question about this device

The Cytosponge™ Cell Collection Device is indicated for use in the collection and retrieval of surface cells in the esophagus.

The subject device the Cytosponge™ Cell Collection Device is a sterile single-use device. The Cytosponge™ Cell Collection Device consists of a clear, size 00 vegetable-material-derived capsule, which holds a 30mm spherical sponge inside of the capsule containing the sponge is attached to silicone-coated braided polyester suture. The suture is attached and secured to a retainer card via an ABS plug. The Cytosponge™ Cell Collection Device consists of a swallowable capsule, which dissolves in the stomach, releasing a self-expandable sponge is then retrieved from the esophagus using an attached cord; during the retrieval process, the sponge collects cells from the outer layer of esophageal tissue

The provided text does not contain detailed acceptance criteria or a study that rigorously proves the device meets specific performance criteria in terms of diagnostic accuracy or clinical efficacy. The document is a 510(k) premarket notification for the Cytosponge Cell Collection Device, focusing on demonstrating substantial equivalence to predicate devices rather than clinical performance for diagnostic purposes.

Here's a breakdown of the information that is available and what is missing based on your request:

Missing Information (Crucial for answering most of your questions):

• Acceptance Criteria for Device Performance: The document does not define specific performance metrics like sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy that the device needs to meet for cell collection for diagnostic purposes. It only states the device's function: "collection and retrieval of surface cells in the esophagus."
• Study Proving Device Meets Acceptance Criteria: There is no detailed clinical study presented with a test set, ground truth, expert adjudication, or effectiveness measures for cell collection in a clinical diagnostic context.
• Sample Size for Test Set: Not applicable as no such diagnostic performance study is described.
• Data Provenance (Country, Retrospective/Prospective): Not applicable.
• Number of Experts & Qualifications: Not applicable.
• Adjudication Method: Not applicable.
• MRMC Comparative Effectiveness Study: Not mentioned.
• Standalone Performance (Algorithm only): Not applicable, as this is a physical cell collection device, not an AI algorithm.
• Type of Ground Truth: Not applicable, as no diagnostic performance study is detailed.
• Sample Size for Training Set: Not applicable, as there's no machine learning algorithm being trained.
• How Ground Truth for Training Set was Established: Not applicable.

Information Available from the Text:

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

   • Acceptance Criteria: The document implies "conformance to the requirements for its indications for use" and "substantial equivalence" to predicate devices. However, explicit quantitative acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance (e.g., cell yield percentage, detection rate of abnormalities) are not provided.
   • Reported Device Performance: The document only mentions "Verification and Validation activity" which included:
     • Animal testing to support the indication for use
     • Biocompatibility testing
     • Sterilization
     • Packaging validation
     • Shelf life testing
     • User validation
     • Bench performance testing:
       • Suture length testing
       • Dissolution testing (of the capsule)
       • Sponge diameter testing
       • Suture tensile testing
       • Laceration testing

   Table (Based on the limited information):

   Acceptance Criterion (Implied/Tested Aspect)	Reported Device Performance (Summary of Testing)
   Support for Indication for Use	Animal testing conducted.
   Biocompatibility	Biocompatibility testing conducted.
   Sterility	Sterilization testing conducted.
   Packaging Integrity	Packaging validation conducted.
   Shelf Life	Shelf life testing conducted.
   User Acceptability	User validation conducted.
   Suture Length Conformance	Bench testing performed.
   Capsule Dissolution	Dissolution testing performed.
   Sponge Diameter Conformance	Sponge diameter testing performed.
   Suture Tensile Strength	Suture tensile testing performed.
   Device Material Integrity (Laceration)	Laceration testing performed.
   Clinical Diagnostic Performance	Not specified in this document.

In summary, this 510(k) submission focuses on the safety and foundational functional aspects of the device and its substantial equivalence to previously approved devices, rather than a detailed clinical performance study for diagnostic accuracy, which would typically involve the criteria you've asked about (test set, ground truth, expert adjudication, etc.). The "animal testing to support the indication for use" is the closest mention to clinical data, but no specifics are provided regarding its design, results, or how it directly ties to acceptance criteria for diagnostic performance.

Ask a specific question about this device