GI MONITOR AND GI MONITOR CALIBRATORS ON THE ACCESS IMMUNOASSAY SYSTEMS, MODEL 387687, 387688
K033038 · Beckman Coulter, Inc. · NIG · Dec 29, 2003 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K033038
Device Name
GI MONITOR AND GI MONITOR CALIBRATORS ON THE ACCESS IMMUNOASSAY SYSTEMS, MODEL 387687, 387688
Applicant
Beckman Coulter, Inc.
Product Code
NIG · Immunology
Decision Date
Dec 29, 2003
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.6010
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The Access GI Monitor assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for the quantitative determination of CA 19-9 antigen levels in human serum and plasma using the Access Immunoassay Systems. This device is indicated for use in the measurement of CA 19-9 antigen to aid in the management of pancreatic cancer patients. The test is useful as an aid in monitoring of disease status in those patients having confirmed pancreatic cancer whose serum CA 19-9 antigen levels exceed 10U/mL, the cut-off value for individuals who are Lewis blood group antigen negative. Serial testing for patient CA 19-9 antigen concentrations should be used in conjunction with other clinical methods used for monitoring pancreatic cancer.
Device Story
Access GI Monitor is an automated, two-site 'sandwich' enzyme immunoassay for quantitative determination of CA 19-9 antigen in human serum and plasma. System utilizes paramagnetic particles as solid support and alkaline phosphatase-conjugated monoclonal antibodies; detection via dioxetane-based chemiluminescent substrate measuring light production. Operated on Access Immunoassay Systems (Access, Access 2, Synchron LXi 725, UniCel Dxl 800) in clinical laboratory settings by trained personnel. Healthcare providers use serial CA 19-9 concentration results in conjunction with other clinical methods to monitor disease status in pancreatic cancer patients. Automated processing provides standardized, objective measurements, facilitating longitudinal tracking of patient response to therapy or disease progression.
Clinical Evidence
Clinical study included 63 patients with confirmed pancreatic cancer (34 male, 29 female; mean age ~64). 168 observation pairs analyzed for serial monitoring. Concordance between Access GI Monitor and predicate device evaluated; total concordance 61.3% (95% CI 58.8-68.3%), positive concordance 59.4% (95% CI 47.7-70.2%), negative concordance 62.6% (95% CI 52.8-71.5%). Per-patient total concordance 66.0%. Method comparison with 405 samples showed Deming regression slope 0.9569, r=0.9007. Normal reference range established using 291 subjects; 95th percentile 35 U/mL.
Indicated for monitoring disease status in patients with confirmed pancreatic cancer. Applicable to patients with serum CA 19-9 levels exceeding 10 U/mL (cut-off for Lewis blood group antigen negative individuals).
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A tumor-associated antigen immunological test system is a device that consists of reagents used to qualitatively or quantitatively measure, by immunochemical techniques, tumor-associated antigens in serum, plasma, urine, or other body fluids. This device is intended as an aid in monitoring patients for disease progress or response to therapy or for the detection of recurrent or residual disease.
Special Controls
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). Tumor markers must comply with the following special controls: (1) A guidance document entitled “Guidance Document for the Submission of Tumor Associated Antigen Premarket Notifications (510(k)s) to FDA,” and (2) voluntary assay performance standards issued by the National Committee on Clinical Laboratory Standards.
{0}
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
k033038
B. Analyte:
CA 19-9
C. Type of Test:
Quantitative, automated chemiluminescence, two-site “sandwich” enzyme immunoassay
D. Applicant:
Beckman Coulter Inc.
E. Proprietary and Established Names:
Access GI Monitor
Access GI Monitor Calibrators on the Access Immunoassay Systems
F. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR 866.6010 Tumor-associated Antigen Immunological Test System
21 CFR 862.1150 Calibrator
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product Code:
NIG, System, Test, Carbohydrate antigen (CA 19-9) for monitoring and management of pancreatic cancer;
JIT, Calibrator, Secondary
4. Panel:
Immunology (82)
G. Intended Use:
The Access GI Monitor assay is a paramagnetic particle, chemiluminescent immunoassay for the quantitative determination of CA 19-9 antigen levels in human serum and plasma using the Access Immunoassay Systems. This device is indicated for use in the measurement of CA 19-9 antigen to aid in the management of pancreatic cancer patients. The test is useful as an aid in monitoring of disease status in those patients having confirmed pancreatic cancer whose serum CA 19-9 antigen levels exceed $10\mathrm{U/mL}$, the cut-off value for individuals who are Lewis blood group antigen negative. Serial testing for patient CA 19-9 antigen concentrations should be used in conjunction with other clinical methods used for monitoring pancreatic cancer.
{1}
Page 2 of 10
The Access GI Monitor Calibrators are intended to calibrate the Access GI Monitor assay for the quantitative determination of CA 19-9 antigen levels in human serum and plasma using the Access Immunoassay Systems.
1. Indication(s) for use:
as an aid in monitoring of disease status in those patients having confirmed pancreatic cancer whose serum CA 19-9 antigen levels exceed 10 U/mL, the cut-off value for individuals who are Lewis blood group antigen negative.
2. Special condition for use statement(s):
Patients must possess the ability to express the Lewis blood group antigen or they will be unable to produce the CA 19-9 antigen even in the presence of proven malignancy. The CA 19-9 antigen is not expressed in persons with genotype Lewis$^{a-b}$, which corresponds to about 5% of the population. A patient with a positive genotype for the Lewis antigen may produce varying levels of CA 19-9 antigen. Phenotyping for the presence of the Lewis blood group antigen may be insufficient to detect true Lewis antigen negative individuals.
For prescription use only.
3. Special instrument Requirements:
Use with automated, random access analyzers Access Immunoassay Analyzer (K922823), Access 2 (K922823/A007), Synchron LXi 725 Clinical System (K023049) and UniCel DxI 800 Access Immunoassay System (K023764). These systems were 510(k) cleared and with the same intended use and measuring method.
H. Device Description:
The Access GI Monitor reagents consist of reagent packs, calibrators, chemiluminescent substrate (dioxetane-based), wash buffer (a Tris-buffered saline solution containing surfactant and preservatives) and sample diluent (a HEPES-buffered BSA matrix containing surfactant and preservatives). Each reagent pack contains 1) the paramagnetic particles coated with goat polyclonal anti-biotin antibody in a Tris-buffered saline solution with BSA; 2) an alkaline phosphatase conjugate mouse monoclonal anti-CA 19-9 in an MES-buffered solution with BSA; 3) a biotin conjugate mouse monoclonal anti-CA 19-9 in a Tris-buffered saline solution with BSA and 4) a Tris-buffered protein solution (bovine, goat and mouse). All components in the reagent pack have <0.1% sodium azide and 0.1% ProClin 300.
The Access GI Monitor Calibrators consist of 6 calibrators with CA 19-9 concentrations of 0, 30, 90, 300, 900 and 2000 U/mL in HEPES-buffered solution, with BSA, <0.1% sodium azide and 0.5% ProClin 300.
I. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
Fujirebio Diagnostics CA 19-9™ RIA
2. Predicate K number(s):
K020566
{2}
Page 3 of 10
3. Comparison with predicate:
| DEVICE | PREDICATE |
| --- | --- |
| A. Similarities | |
| Intended Use. - Quantitative analysis of CA 19-9 in human serum and plasma | Same |
| Antibody Type and Source – Monoclonal, mouse | Same |
| B. Differences | |
| Sample Type – Serum and plasma (lithium heparin) | Serum and plasma (EDTA, ACD and heparin) |
| Assay Method – Automated chemiluminescence, two-site “sandwich” enzyme immunoassay | Manual RIA, two-site “sandwich” radioimmunoassay |
| Solid Phase - antibody-coated paramagnetic beads | antibody-coated polystyrene beads |
| Detection Method - Alkaline phosphatase conjugated monoclonal antibody and a dioxetane-based chemiluminescent substrate | 125 I conjugated monoclonal antibody |
| Instruments - Access Immunoassay Analyzers | Manual or semi-automated |
| Calibrator – Liquid, buffered bovine serum albumin matrix, 6 levels | Liquid, defibrinated normal human plasma, 6 levels |
| Control - Not provided | 2 levels defibrinated human plasma |
| Antibody Specificity - Sialyl Lewis a (clone C192:22:5) | Sialyl Lewis a (1116-NS19-9) |
| Analytical Range – 0.8 – 2000 U/mL | 0.9-240 units/mL |
| Assay Sensitivity - 0.8 U/mL | 0.9 units/mL |
| Precision | |
| intra-assay %CV - 1.7% to 6.4% | 6.5%-12.5% |
| inter-assay %CV - 2.4% to 5.7% | 3.0% to 8.6% |
| total %CV -3.0% to 8.9% | 6.7%-15.4% |
| High Dose Hook Effect – Up to 800,000 U/mL | Up to 1,250,000 U/mL |
J. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
None referenced.
K. Test Principle:
The Access GI Monitor assay is a two-site immunoenzymatic assay. A sample is added to a reaction vessel along with paramagnetic particles coated with polyclonal goat anti-biotin antibody (the solid phase), biotin-conjugated mouse anti-CA 19-9 monoclonal antibody (b-Mab) and a buffered protein solution. If the CA 19-9 is present in the sample, it will bind to the b-Mab which will be captured by the anti-biotin antibodies on the paramagnetic particles. After incubation, excess unbound antigen is separated from the solid phase by a magnet field and removed by washing. An alkaline phosphatase conjugated mouse anti-CA 19-9 monoclonal antibody (ap-Mab) is added and binds to the CA 19-9 captured on the solid phase. After incubation, unbound materials are removed by washing. Then the chemiluminescent substrate Lumi-Phos® 530 is added to the reaction vessel and light generated by the reaction is measured with a luminometer. The light production is directly
{3}
proportional to the concentration of CA 19-9 in the sample. The amount of analyte in the sample is determined from a stored, multi-point calibration curve.
## L. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
### 1. Analytical performance:
#### a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The within-run, between-run and total precision studies were performed using 4 in-house controls with CA 19-9 concentrations of 17.4, 110.5, 584.6 and 1664.5 U/mL. The samples were assayed in duplicates for 20 days. The following table summarized the within-run, between-run and total precision.
| Sample | Mean (U/mL) | Within-run SD | Within-run %CV | Between-run SD | Between-run %CV | Total %CV |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Level 1 | 17.4 | 1.1 | 6.4 | 1.0 | 5.7 | 8.9 |
| Level 2 | 110.5 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.5 |
| Level 3 | 584.6 | 10.2 | 1.7 | 14.8 | 2.5 | 3.1 |
| Level 4 | 1664.5 | 29.7 | 1.8 | 40.7 | 2.4 | 3.0 |
The %CV for within-run imprecision ranged from 1.7% to 6.4%, between-run imprecision from 2.4% to 5.7% and the total imprecision from 3.0% to 8.9%. These results are within acceptable limits.
The sponsor provided additional data on another reagent lot as requested and results showed acceptable lot-to-lot precision.
#### b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Linearity was evaluated by assaying 6 serum samples containing high concentrations of CA 19-9 (602.4 to 1382.1 U/mL). Each sample was serially diluted with sample diluent to 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, 1:16, 1:32 and 1:64. All concentrations were analyzed in quadruplicates. The observed results were compared to the expected results and the percent recovery was calculated. The percent recoveries ranged from 88.6% to 108.3%. The individual mean sample recoveries varied between 92.6% and 99.5%.
The assay measuring range is from 0.8 U/mL to 2000 U/mL
#### c. Traceability (controls, calibrators, or method):
No reference standards or method available. The Fujirebio CA 19-9 RIA assay was used to assign values to the primary reference calibrators.
#### d. Detection limit (functional sensitivity):
{4}
Page 5 of 10
The minimal detectable concentration (MDC) is determined by assaying 10 replicates of the zero calibrator in multiple assays and is defined as the concentration of CA 19-9 that corresponds to the mean RLU's +2SD of the zero calibrator. Data showed the MDC was 0.8 U/mL.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference was determined by spiking different concentrations of each interfering substance into aliquots of a normal sera containing low concentrations of CA 19-9. Interfering substances tested include hemoglobin, bilirubin, triglyceride, albumin, drugs and therapeutic agents. To assess interference due to rheumatoid factor and HAMA, positive patient samples were used. No significant interference was observed.
f. Assay cut-off:
Not applicable.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
Four hundred and five serum samples were tested on the Access GI Monitor assay and the Fujirebio CA 19-9 Assay. These samples were collected from male and female subjects who were either normal, with benign or malignant diseases. The CA 19-9 concentrations of the samples covered the assay range of the Fujirebio assay (0-240 U/mL). The assays were performed in duplicate. The results were analyzed by Deming regression and gave a slope of 0.9569 (95% CI; 0.91 to 1.00) and the y-intercept of 2.5726 (95% CI; -0.09 to 5.23) and a coefficient correlation (r) of 0.9007. Bland-Altman difference plot as calculated by the reviewer showed a mean difference of -6.096 U/mL (95% CI -12.2 to 0.0008). The bias between the two devices most likely reflects differences in technology and antibodies used in the assay.
b. Matrix comparison:
Eighty matched serum and lithium heparin plasma samples from healthy adult subjects were analyzed using the Access GI Monitor assay. The sample CA 19-9 concentrations ranged from 0 to 1650.9 U/mL. Results were analyzed by Deming regression which showed (Plasma) = 0.9842 (Serum) - 0.5002, the correlation coefficient (r) was 0.9995.
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable
c. Other clinical information
Serial Monitoring Analysis – Serum samples from 63 patients with confirmed pancreatic cancer were prospectively collected at two US
{5}
Page 6 of 10
clinical sites. The 63 subjects consisted of 34 males and 29 females with an average age of 63.3 y (±7.5 y) and 64.6y (±15.5 y) respectively. The age range for the male subjects was from 48 y to 78 y and for the female subjects, 23 y to 83 y. The follow-up period ranged from 21 days to 66 months. Seventy-nine percent of the cohort were Caucasians, 11% Hispanics, 3% African Americans and 7% other ethnic groups. Ten patients were excluded from the analysis because they had CA 19-9 values ≤ 10 U/mL, a cut-off value for Lewis blood group non-secretors as defined by the sponsor for the Access GU Monitor assay. For the remaining 53 patients, there were 222 samples with an average number of 6.32 ± 9.0 observations per patient (ranged from 1 to 13 observation pairs). The breakdown of the patient series is summarized below.
| # Samples in Series | #Observation Pairs | Frequency | % |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | 1 | 15 | 28.3 |
| 3 | 2 | 11 | 20.7 |
| 4 | 3 | 10 | 18.9 |
| 5 | 4 | 8 | 15.0 |
| 6 | 5 | 2 | 3.8 |
| 7 | 6 | 1 | 1.9 |
| 8 | 7 | 2 | 3.8 |
| 9 | 8 | 1 | 1.9 |
| 10 | 9 | 1 | 1.9 |
| 11 | 10 | 1 | 1.9 |
| 14 | 13 | 1 | 1.9 |
At the time of diagnosis, 11.3% of the patients had Stage I disease, 30.2% Stage II, 17% Stage III and 39.6% stage IV. One patient did not have staging information at diagnosis. The average (± SD) length of time in the study was 294.7 (± 421.8) days respectively, ranging from 17 days to 2013 days. The median was 142.5 days.
Changes in CA 19-9 concentrations and changes in disease state were analyzed on a per-visit and a per-patient basis. A significant change in CA 19-9 is defined as greater than 2.5 times %CV of the assay total imprecision as established by running 5 controls (10 U/mL to 40 U/mL) for multiple days, lots, sites and instruments. A polynomial regression analysis was used to model the within, between and total imprecision. The regression model used the log (SD) as the dependent and log (mean CA 19-9 concentration for each sample) as the independent variable. Based on the study results, a 20% change was selected to cover the imprecision across the levels of CA 19-9 used. The predicate device also uses a 20% change.
Results of the 168 evaluable observation pairs are summarized below [(predicate results are in ()]. The pairs were classified as "Progression", "Stable/NED" and "Responding". The distribution of results between the Access GI Monitor assay and the predicate were
{6}
not statistically different. For the "progression" group, the Chi-Square p-value was 0.3108, for the "Stable/NED" group was 0.1828 and for the "Responding" group was 1.0000.
| Change in CA 19-9 | Change in Disease State | | | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Responding | Stable/NED | Progressing | |
| >20% | 6 (6) | 33 (23) | 41 (38) | 80 (67) |
| | 27.3% | 42.9% (29.9%) | 59.4% (55.1%) | 47.6% (39.9%) |
| =20% | 3 (3) | 26 (36) | 11 (18) | 40 (57) |
| | 13.6% (13.6%) | 33.8% (46.8%) | 15.9% (26.1%)) | 23.8% (33.9%) |
| <20% | 13 (13) | 18 (18) | 17 (13) | 48 (44) |
| | 59.1% (59.1%) | 23.4% (23.4%) | 24.6% (18.8%) | 28.6% (26.2%) |
| Total | 22 (22) | 77 (77) | 69 (69) | 168 (168) |
The following table shows results grouped into "Progression" and "No Progression". "No Progression" included results from stable, responding or no evidence of disease.
| Change in CA 19-9 | Change in Disease State | | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Progression | No Progression | |
| Significant Change >20% | 41 (38) | 37 (29) | 80 (67) |
| No Change ≤20% | 28 (31) | 62 (70) | 88 (101) |
| Total | 69 | 99 | 168 |
For the Access GI Monitor assay, total concordance was $61.3\%$ (95%CI 58.8% to 68.3%), positive concordance $59.4\%$ (95%CI 47.7% to 70.2%) and negative concordance $62.6\%$ (95%CI 52.8% to 71.5%). For the predicate device, total concordance was $64.3\%$ (95%CI 56.8% to 71.7%), positive concordance $55.1\%$ (95%CI 43.4% to 66.2%) and negative concordance $70.7\%$ (95%CI 61.1% to 78.8%).
The per-patient basis results are summarized below [predicate device values are in ()]. On a per-patient basis, the Access GI Monitor assay had a total concordance of $66.0\%$ (95% CI 52.6% to 77.3%), a positive concordance $78.1\%$ (95%CI 61.2% to 89.0%) and a negative concordance $47.6\%$ (95%CI 28.3% to 67.6%) as compared to a total concordance of $69.8\%$ (95% CI 56.5% to 80.5%), a positive concordance $78.1\%$ (95%CI 61.2% to 89.0%) and a negative concordance $57.1\%$ (95%CI 36.6 to 75.5) for the predicate device.
| Change in CA 19-9 | Change in Disease State | | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | Progression | No Progression | |
| Significant Change (>20%) | 25 (25) | 11 (9) | 36 (34) |
| No Change (≤20%) | 7 (7) | 10 (12) | 17 (19) |
| Total | 32 (32) | 21 (21) | 53 (53) |
Comparison of CA 19-9 results between the Access GI Monitor assay and the predicate device showed a positive agreement of $94\%$ , a negative agreement $83.2\%$ and a total agreement was $87.5\%$ .
{7}
Page 8 of 10
| | Fujirebio CA 19-9 | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ≥20% change | <20% change | Total |
| Access GI Monitor | >20% change | 63 | 17 | 80 |
| | ≤20% change | 4 | 84 | 88 |
| | Total | 67 | 101 | 168 |
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
The normal reference range was established by testing serum samples from 291 subjects (150 females and 141 males). The mean and median age of the cohort was 55.4 y (ranged from 20 y to 79 y) and 60.9 y respectively. The female subjects had a mean age of 60.0 y (20 y to 79 y) and median age of 63.9 y whereas the mean age of the male subjects was 50.5 y (20 y to 78 y) and median age 50.7 y. The mean ages between the genders were statistically different but not clinically significant. The table below shows the CA 19-9 results analyzed by gender. The 95th percentile (35 U/mL) of the CA 19-9 results was used as the upper reference limit for the Access assay.
| Subject | #Subjects | CA 19-9 Concentration (U/mL) | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Mean ± SD | Median | 95th Percentile | Range |
| Males | 141 | 11.0 ± 12.2 | 7.3 | 34.9 | 0.0-85.1 |
| Female | 150 | 12.0 ± 12.1 | 8.4 | 36.0 | 0.1-71.1 |
| Combined | 291 | 11.5 ± 12.1 | 7.7 | 35.4 | 0.0-85.1 |
The following table shows the CA 19-9 assay result distribution with 94.5% of the subjects had <35 U/mL CA 19-9.
| Subject | Number of Subjects | CA 19-9 Concentrations (U/mL) | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | 0-35 | 35.1-70 | 70.1-100 | >100 |
| Male | 141 | 134 | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| Female | 150 | 141 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Combined | 291 | 275 | 14 | 2 | 0 |
Using each assay's upper reference limit, the Access GI Monitor assay results were compared to that of the Fujirebio CA 19-9 assay. The % positive agreement was 71.4% (15/21), % negative agreement 99.6% (269/270) and % total agreement 97.6% (284/291). The discordance between the two assays was not statistically different from zero (p = 0.125).
| | | Fujirebio CA 19-9 | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ≥37 U/mL | <37 U/mL | Total |
| Access GI | ≥35 U/mL | 15 | 1 | 16 |
| Monitor | <35 U/mL | 6 | 269 | 275 |
| | Total | 21 | 270 | 291 |
In addition to the normal cohort, 522 serum samples from patients with benign conditions and 469 from patients with malignant diseases were tested. The CA 19-9 concentrations for the cohorts are summarized below.
{8}
The table below summarizes the distribution of subjects according to CA 19-9 concentrations. Results showed all cancer groups had higher mean CA 19-9 values than the benign disease cohorts. Patients with pancreatic cancer had mean values five times greater than the other cancer groups.
| Cohorts | #Subjects | CA 19-9 Concentrations (U/mL) | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | 0-35 | 35.1-70 | 70.1-100 > 100 |
| Normal | 291 | 275 | 14 | 2 |
| Benign Conditions | | | | |
| Pancreatic | 100 | 90 | 92 | 0 |
| Chronic heart disease/ Hypertension | 85 | 81 | 4 | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal | 147 | 140 | 7 | 0 |
| Genitourinary | 190 | 174 | 15 | 1 |
| Non-pancreatic Malignant Conditions | | | | |
| Biliary/Gallbladder | 25 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
| Breast | 37 | 35 | 0 | 1 |
| Gastrointestinal | 142 | 102 | 21 | 0 |
| Genitourinary | 111 | 95 | 9 | 4 |
| Liver | 84 | 67 | 9 | 0 |
| Lung | 70 | 52 | 11 | 1 |
| Pancreatic Cancer | 40 | 10 | 2 | 5 |
Serum samples from 40 patients (25 males and 15 females) with pancreatic cancer (stages I to IV) were also analyzed. Twelve patients had treatment prior to their specimen draw date. The mean and median age of the combined cohort was 63.4 and 64.6 yrs respectively (ranged from 38 to 85 yrs). The CA 19-9 concentrations by the Access GI Monitor assay and the predicate device are summarized below. Non-parametric Wilcoxon analysis demonstrated the median values between the two assays were not statistically different (p-value of 0.4914).
| Assay | Number of Subjects | CA 19-9 Concentrations (U/mL) | | | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Mean | Median | 5thPercentile | 95thPercentile | 95% CI (Median) | Range |
| Fujirebio | 40 | 12757.8 | 406.4 | 4.7 | 98280 | 79.2 to 1730.6 | 2.2-174340 |
| Access | 40 | 7164.9 | 307.1 | 0.01 | 43330 | 76.5 to 1406.8 | 0.0-139130 |
| Biliary/Gallbladder | 25 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Breast | 37 | 35 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal | 142 | 102 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Genitourinary | 111 | 95 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Liver | 84 | 67 | 9 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| Lung | 70 | 52 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| Pancreatic Cancer | 40 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 23 | 23 | 0 |
{9}
The distribution of subjects according to CA 19-9 levels are summarized below.
| Assay | Number of Subjects | CA 19-9 Concentrations (U/mL) | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | 0-35 | 35.1-70 | 70.1-100 | >100 |
| Fujirebio | 40 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 26 |
| Access | 40 | 10 | 2 | 5 | 23 |
# M. Conclusion:
Based on the review of information provided in this 510 (k), the Access GI Monitor appears to be Substantially Equivalent to the marketed device Fujirebio CA 19-9 RIA regulated under 21 CFR 866.6010, product code NIG, Immunology Device Panel 82, Class II. The calibrator is reviewed following regulation 21 CFR 862.1150 and product code, JIT, Class II.
Predicate graph will load when search results are available.
Embedding visualization will load when search results are available.
PDF viewer will load when search results are available.
Loading panels...
Select an item from Submissions
Click any panel, subpart, regulation, product code, or device to see details here.
Section Matches
Results will appear here.
Product Code Matches
Results will appear here.
Special Control Matches
Results will appear here.
Loading collections...
Loading
My Alerts
You will receive email notifications based on the filters and frequency you set for each alert.
Sort by:
Create Alert
Search Filters
Agent Token
Create a read-only bearer token for Claude, ChatGPT, or other agents that can call HTTP APIs.
Copy this now. It will not be shown again.
Connected apps
Apps you authorized through browser sign-in. Disconnecting revokes their access immediately.
Learn the FDA Browser
Two short videos show you everything — or skip straight to the written tutorial if you'd rather read. You can reopen this any time from the Tutorial button in the top bar.
Part 1 — Search, results, and everyday workflows 16 min
Part 2 — Embeddings: the galaxy map 3 min
1. Search: exact and fuzzy
Type a phrase like "coronary artery calcification" into the search box. You get two kinds of results. Exact results match the literal phrase — prefix searches work ("coronary artery calcificati") but suffix searches do not. Fuzzy results match on the meaning and intent of your phrase rather than the exact words, and are sorted by relevance score. Hover over the Exact or Fuzzy badge on any row to see exactly why it matched.
Use the checkboxes above the results to narrow: SaMD keeps only software-only devices, AI / ML keeps only devices with AI.
Exact vs. fuzzy search: what's the difference?
Exact matches on the literal phrase (prefix search works, suffix does not). Fuzzy matches on the meaning and intent of the phrase rather than the exact words. Hover over the badge on any row to see why it matched.
You search "coronary artery calcification" and want only software devices with AI. What two filters do you apply?
Narrow by SaMD (software-only devices), then narrow by AI/ML (devices with AI).
2. The results table
Scroll right in the results table. The intended use is extracted for you — no need to open the PDF. The device story gives a high-level snapshot of what the device does and how it's used. The AI Performance sub-table shows each output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, and development/test dataset descriptions — the same format Innolitics uses for regulatory strategy outputs, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. It is AI-generated but has been very reliable in practice.
Where do you find a device's intended use without opening the PDF?
Scroll right in the search results table. The intended use column is extracted for you; no need to dig into the 510(k) summary PDF.
What does the AI Performance sub-table show, and why is it useful?
Output name, acceptance criteria, observed values, development dataset description, and test dataset description. It's the same format we use for regulatory strategy output and Fast 510(k) input, and the fastest high-level fingerprint of an AI device. AI-generated but reliable in practice.
3. Judging fuzzy relevance
Fuzzy results trail off in relevance as you scroll. Use three signals to decide how far down to go: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether your target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, you're past the relevant zone. A top hit with a low score (~0.4) and a stretched explanation is a hint the closest predicates are far away — the project may be headed for De Novo. Note the fuzzy search is a pattern match: it doesn't handle negation ("not") well, and hardware devices can appear — filter by SaMD/AI ML to cut them.
How do you judge how far down fuzzy search results to go?
Use the relevancy signals: the fuzzy badge explanations, the intended use column, and whether the target output (e.g., Cobb angle) still appears in the AI Performance sub-table. Once it stops appearing, results are trailing off in relevancy.
4. Device detail page: chat and citations
Click a device name to open its detail page: device facts on the left, a chat window on the right. Ask something like "Describe the training data". The answer carries little citation bubbles — click one to jump to the highlighted passage in the source PDF, so you can verify every AI answer against the document. There's also a Download PDF button for sharing.
How do you verify an AI chat answer on the device detail page?
Click the citation bubbles to jump to the relevant highlight in the source document.
Reading rule for every project: how many summaries do you read in full?
At least the three most relevant 510(k) or De Novo summaries, in full. After that, use targeted chat questions to confirm your memory quickly. The tool supports this professional habit — it doesn't replace it.
5. Side-by-side comparison
Select multiple rows in the results table (aim for under ~10), then open the PDF Viewer tab. Ask one question — it goes to all selected devices in parallel, each with citations. This is the fastest way to compare and contrast devices: training data, PCCP scope, how they handled adding new scanners, and so on.
What does the side-by-side PDF viewer mode do?
Select multiple devices, open the PDF viewer tab, and ask one question (e.g., "Describe the training data"). It queries all selected devices simultaneously with citations, so you can compare and contrast quickly.
6. Collections
With rows selected, go to the Collections tab and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). Reload that selection any time — before a client call, pull up the collection and ask questions across all of its devices at once.
How do you save a set of selected devices for later use?
Select the rows, go to the Collections tab, and create a labeled collection (e.g., "Cobb Angle Project"). You can reload the selection anytime and carry it into the PDF viewer and other tabs that support selections.
7. Product codes and the regulations tree
Click a product code in the results to jump to it in the regulations tree — identification text, sibling product codes, and devices you can open in a PDF viewer on the right. Click a regulation number to see its identification, special controls, and related product codes. You can also search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree. Always read the special controls if any exist for your device — it broadens your search and sharpens pre-kickoff research.
What can you do from the regulations tree view?
Browse product codes and regulation numbers, read the identification text and special controls, browse sibling product codes, open device PDFs on the right, and search by product code or regulation number at the top of the tree.
8. Chart view
Click Show Chart and segment by regulation number (or product code) to see which regulations dominate your result set. Clicking a regulation takes you into the regulations tree. Great for spotting that most matches are, say, hardware laparoscopic devices — a cue to go back and filter.
How do you see which regulations dominate a search result set?
Click "Show Chart" and segment by Regulation Number. Clicking a regulation takes you to the regulations tree.
9. The predicate graph
Open the Predicates tab for a family-tree view of predicate relationships. Click a node to trace its parents and children; selections from search carry over pre-selected. Commonly predicated devices are worth reading — a lot of people predicated them for a reason. The visual lineage is also handy on client calls, e.g. to show how a predicate family evolved and justify why your predicate still holds.
In the predicate graph, why are commonly predicated devices worth reading?
A lot of people predicated them for a reason. Clicking a node traces parents and children, and selections from search carry over pre-selected.
10. Embeddings: the galaxy map
The Embeddings tab plots every matching document in a 2-D "galaxy map" where semantically similar devices cluster together. Hover or click clusters to explore, and let AI label the clusters for you. Embeddings beat product codes for grouping: two devices can carry different product codes (LLZ vs. QIH) yet do the same thing — the embedding captures the meaning of the intended use and device story. This is also exactly how retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) works under the hood, and it makes a great visual on client calls.
Try it yourself
Head to the search page and work through a few of these AI/ML fuzzy searches to build intuition: perivascular fat on CT · aortic valve calcification opportunistic screening on noncontrast CT · breast cancer prediction on digital pathology slides · autism detection · gestational age prediction · a hearing aid that can also detect a pulse · foundation model based analysis of ECG · large language models · penetration test. Watch how the relevance scores, intended use, and AI Performance tables tell you when results stop being meaningful.