FREELITE HUMAN KAPPA AND LAMBDA FREE DIAGNOSTIC TEST KITS FOR USE ON THE ROCHE COBAS INTEGRA 400/400 PLUS ANALYZER KIT
K070900 · The Binding Site, Ltd. · DFH · Nov 30, 2007 · Immunology
Device Facts
Record ID
K070900
Device Name
FREELITE HUMAN KAPPA AND LAMBDA FREE DIAGNOSTIC TEST KITS FOR USE ON THE ROCHE COBAS INTEGRA 400/400 PLUS ANALYZER KIT
Applicant
The Binding Site, Ltd.
Product Code
DFH · Immunology
Decision Date
Nov 30, 2007
Decision
SESE
Submission Type
Traditional
Regulation
21 CFR 866.5550
Device Class
Class 2
Indications for Use
The FREELITE™ Human Kappa Free kit is intended for the quantitation of Kappa free light chains in serum on the Roche COBAS INTEGRA 400 and 400plus. Measurement of light chains aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings. The FREELITE™ Human Lambda Free kit is intended for the quantitation of Lambda free light chains in serum on the Roche COBAS INTEGRA 400 and 400plus. Measurement of light chains aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom’s mac疗globulinemia, amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
Device Story
In vitro diagnostic kit for quantitative measurement of human Kappa and Lambda free light chains in serum; utilizes polyclonal monospecific antibodies coated onto polystyrene latex particles. Operates via turbidimetric assay on Roche COBAS INTEGRA 400/400plus analyzers. Sample mixed with antibody reagent in cuvette; antigen-antibody reaction forms insoluble immune complexes; light scatter measured as decrease in intensity of incident beam. Amount of immune complex proportional to antigen concentration; results derived from calibration curve. Used in clinical laboratory settings by trained personnel. Output aids clinicians in diagnosis and monitoring of plasma cell dyscrasias and related conditions. Benefits include rapid, automated quantification of free light chains to support clinical decision-making.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical data provided; substantial equivalence is based on bench testing and performance validation of the assay on the specified analyzer platform.
Indicated for the quantitation of kappa and lambda free light chains in serum to aid in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease, and connective tissue diseases (e.g., systemic lupus erythematosus) in patients requiring clinical laboratory assessment.
Regulatory Classification
Identification
An immunoglobulin (light chain specific) immunological test system is a device that consists of the reagents used to measure by immunochemical techniques both kappa and lambda types of light chain portions of immunoglobulin molecules in serum, other body fluids, and tissues. In some disease states, an excess of light chains are produced by the antibody-forming cells. These free light chains, unassociated with gamma globulin molecules, can be found in a patient's body fluids and tissues. Measurement of the various amounts of the different types of light chains aids in the diagnosis of multiple myeloma (cancer of antibody-forming cells), lymphocytic neoplasms (cancer of lymphoid tissue), Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia (increased production of large immunoglobulins), and connective tissue diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus.
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}
1
# 510(k) SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATION DECISION SUMMARY
A. 510(k) Number:
k070900
B. Purpose for Submission:
New analyzer
C. Measurand:
Immunoglobulins, Kappa (κ) free light chains and Lambda (λ) free light chains
D. Type of Test:
Quantitative, Nephelometry or turbidimetry
E. Applicant:
The Binding Site, Ltd.
F. Proprietary and Established Names:
FREELITE™ Human Kappa Free Kit for use on Roche COBAS® INTEGRA 400/400plus
FREELITE™ Human Lambda Free Kit for use on Roche COBAS® INTEGRA 400/400plus
G. Regulatory Information:
1. Regulation section:
21 CFR § 866.5550, Immunoglobulin (light chain specific) immunological test system
2. Classification:
Class II
3. Product codes:
DFH - Kappa, antigen, antiserum, control
DEH - Lambda, antigen, antiserum, control
4. Panel:
Immunology (82)
H. Intended Use:
1. Intended use(s):
The FREELITE™ Human Kappa Free kit is intended for the quantitation of Kappa free light chains in serum on the Roche COBAS INTEGRA 400 and 400plus. Measurement of light chains aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
The FREELITE™ Human Lambda Free kit is intended for the quantitation of Lambda free light chains in serum on the Roche COBAS INTEGRA 400 and 400plus. Measurement of light chains aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings.
{1}
2. Indication(s) for use:
Same as Intended use.
3. Special conditions for use statement(s):
For prescription only.
4. Special instrument requirements:
Roche COBAS® INTEGRA 400/400plus
I. Device Description:
The FREELITE™ Human Kappa and Lambda Free kit contains polyclonal monospecific antibody coated onto polystyrene latex, a standard, two controls (high and low polyclonal kappa or lambda free light chain), and supplementary reagent.
J. Substantial Equivalence Information:
1. Predicate device name(s):
FREELITE™ Human Kappa Free Kit for use on Dade Behring Nephelometer™ II
FREELITE™ Human Lambda Free Kit for use on Dade Behring Nephelometer™ II
2. Predicate K number(s):
k010440 (Kappa)
k010441 (Lambda)
3. Comparison with predicate:
| Similarities | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Indication for Use | Measurement of light chains aids in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple myeloma, lymphocytic neoplasms, Waldenstrom’s macroglobulinemia, amyloidosis, light chain deposition disease and connective tissue diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus in conjunction with other laboratory and clinical findings | Same |
| Controls | Human sera containing polyclonal free light chain, in stabilized liquid form, contain 0.099% sodium azide, 0.1% EACA, 0.01% benzamidine. Packaged in glass vials | Same |
| Stability/ storage of unopened reagent | 2-8°C until expiry date | Same |
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Instrument | Roche COBAS INTEGRA 400 and 400plus | Dade Behring Nephelometer II (BN™ II) |
| Technology | Turbidimetry | Nephelometry |
| Assay times | 8.3 minutes | 18 minutes |
{2}
| Differences | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Item | Device | Predicate |
| Cuvettes | Disposable | Washable |
| Sample matrix | Serum | Serum and urine |
| Sample dilution | 1:10 | 1:100 |
| Kappa or Lambda Latex Reagent | Supplied in Nalgene plastic bottles. Transferred to C-Pack prior to assay. | Supplied in Nalgene plastic bottles. No transfer prior to assay. |
| Supplementary Reagent | Type 116 Latex buffer containing Sodium Azide (NaN_{3}) 0.099%. Type 265 PEG solution can be added for optimizing reaction if required. Supplied in Nalgene plastic bottles. Transferred to C-Pack prior to assay. | Type 49 Distilled water containing Sodium Azide (NaN_{3}) 0.099%. Type 265 PEG solution can be added for optimizing reaction if required. Packaged in glass vials. |
| Opened reagent Storage/ stability | 2-8°C up to 1 month | 2-8°C up to 3 months |
| Measuring range | κ: 2.9 – 127 mg/L (1:10)
λ: 5.2 – 139 mg/L (1:8) | κ: 5.9 – 190 mg/L (1:100)
λ: 8.1 – 260 mg/L (1:100) |
| Sensitivity (serum) | κ: 0.6 mg/L (1:2)
λ: 1.3 mg/L (1:2) | κ: 0.3 mg/L (1:5)
λ: 0.4 mg/L (1:5) |
| Linearity | κ: y = 1.003x-0.937, r = 0.99
λ: y = 1.004x-1.123, r = 1.0 | κ: y = 0.98x+0.83, r = 0.99
λ: y = 0.99x-0.63, r = 1.0 |
K. Standard/Guidance Document Referenced (if applicable):
CLSI (NCCLS) EP5-A: Evaluation of Precision Performance of Clinical Chemistry Approved Guideline.
L. Test Principle:
The concentration of a soluble antigen is nephelometrically or turbidimetrically measured by the addition of the test sample to a solution containing the appropriate antibody in a reaction vessel or cuvette. A beam of light is passed through the cuvette and as the antigen-antibody reaction proceeds, the light passing through the cuvette is scattered increasingly as insoluble immune complexes are formed. The antibody in the cuvette is in excess so the amount of immune complex formed is proportional to the antigen concentration. In nephelometry the light scatter is monitored by measuring the light intensity at an angle away from incident light, whilst in turbidimetry light scatter is monitored by measuring the decrease in intensity of the incident beam of light. A series of calibrators of known antigen concentration are assayed initially to produce a calibration curve of measured light scatter versus antigen concentration. Samples of unknown antigen concentration can then be assayed and the results read from the calibration curve.
The sensitivity of nephelometric or turbidimetric assays can be increased by the use of particle enhancement. This entails linking the antibody to a suitably sized particle that increases the relative light-scattering signal of the antigen-antibody reaction.
{3}
M. Performance Characteristics (if/when applicable):
1. Analytical performance:
a. Precision/Reproducibility:
The study was carried out by testing three samples with different concentrations of kappa or lambda light chains using three different reagent lots on one analyzer. The study was performed over 21 working days, with two runs per day. Results are summarized below:
| Kappa Precision | Within run | | Between-run | | Between-day | | Total Precision | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| Low (mean 5.99 mg/L) | 0.35 | 5.8 | 0.16 | 2.7 | 0.22 | 3.6 | 0.44 | 7.4 |
| Medium (mean 18.72 mg/L) | 0.40 | 2.1 | 0.51 | 2.7 | 0.60 | 3.2 | 0.88 | 4.7 |
| High (mean 95.64 mg/L) | 1.38 | 1.4 | 1.68 | 1.8 | 2.01 | 2.1 | 2.97 | 3.1 |
| | | | | | | | | |
| Lambda Precision | Within run | | Between-run | | Between-day | | Total Precision | |
| | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV | SD | %CV |
| Low (mean 7.72 mg/L) | 0.17 | 2.3 | 0.19 | 2.5 | 0.29 | 3.7 | 0.39 | 5.0 |
| Medium (mean 27.0 mg/L) | 0.18 | 0.7 | 0.21 | 0.8 | 0.42 | 1.5 | 0.50 | 1.9 |
| High (mean 99.2 mg/L) | 0.72 | 0.7 | 0.73 | 0.7 | 1.60 | 1.6 | 1.90 | 1.9 |
b. Linearity/assay reportable range:
Linearity was confirmed using serial dilutions of polyclonal samples. The regression plot equations where $\mathbf{y}$ is the measured level of free chain concentration and $\mathbf{x}$ the theoretical concentration were:
$$
y = 1.003x - 0.937 \text{ (mg/L)}, r = 0.99 \text{ for } \kappa \text{ chains}
$$
$$
y = 1.004x - 1.123 \text{ (mg/L)}, r = 1.00 \text{ for } \lambda \text{ chains}
$$
c. Traceability, Stability, Expected values (controls, calibrators, or methods):
No reference standards are available for these analytes. A calibrator and two controls are provided with each kit. No changes were made from previous cleared submission.
On-board stability studies were tested at 0, 4, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31, 38 day intervals. Stability results over the testing period meet the acceptance criteria of $\pm 20\%$ differences.
d. Detection limit:
Analytical sensitivity was determined by assaying ten replicates of two samples with concentrations close to the lowest calibration points. The analytical sensitivity claims were: $0.6 \mathrm{mg} / \mathrm{L}$ for kappa and $1.3 \mathrm{mg} / \mathrm{L}$ for lambda.
e. Analytical specificity:
Interference study: the table below shows common substances that could interfere with this method. Samples were run in triplicate. Minimum interferences were observed except for $15.5\%$ difference with Rheumatoid factor on kappa antiserum. The package insert states the information below.
{4}
5
| Interferent | Concentration | % Difference | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | κ (15 mg/L) | λ (18 mg/L) |
| Bilirubin | 200.0 mg/L | -9.4 | -1.7 |
| Haemoglobin | 5.7 g/L | 8.2 | 3.8 |
| Intralipid | 0.2% | 1.3 | |
| | 0.5% | | -1.9 |
| Rheumatoid factor | 320.0 I.U. | 15.5 | |
| | 480.0 I.U. | | 3.3 |
f. Assay cut-off:
Refer to Expected values.
2. Comparison studies:
a. Method comparison with predicate device:
A total of 132 serum samples were tested on the Freelite Kappa and Lambda Roche Cobas Integra 400/400plus and Freelite Kappa and Lambda Dade Behring BNII assays. Fifty (50) samples were normal adult sera and 82 samples were abnormal adult sera (58 known/suspected multiple myeloma (<80 mg/dL to >1000 mg/dL) and 24 systemic lupus erythematosus). The differences observed between the two assays were likely due to different test parameters and kinetics of reaction. The data including regression analysis results were as follows:
| Samples | Kappa | Lambda |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Normal Sera (n = 50) | | |
| Range (mg/L) | 5-24 mg/L | 3-19 mg/L |
| Deming regression | y=0.932x + 1.472 | y=1.08x -1.09 |
| R² | R²=0.9168 | R²=0.9351 |
| Clinical Sera (n = 82) | | |
| Range (mg/L) | 0.4-1,900 mg/L | 1-18,700 mg/L |
| Deming regression | y=0.90x + 23.54* | y=0.892x + 50.06 |
| R² | 0.9316 | 0.9673 |
*Two markedly high monoclonal values (5000 and 120000 mg/L) were excluded from calculation.
b. Matrix comparison:
Not applicable,
3. Clinical studies:
a. Clinical Sensitivity:
Not applicable.
b. Clinical specificity:
Not applicable.
c. Other clinical supportive data (when a. and b. are not applicable):
Not applicable.
4. Clinical cut-off:
Not applicable.
5. Expected values/Reference range:
The reference range table provided below were from 282 normal subjects aged
{5}
from 20 – 90 years which were assayed using Binding Site FREELITE Kappa and Lambda Free kits on BN II™ (Katzmann, JA et al. 2002 Clin Chem 48: 1437 – 1444).
| Normal adult serum | Mean conc. | Median conc. | 95^{th} percentile range |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Free Kappa | 8.36 (mg/L) | 7.30 (mg/L) | 3.30 - 19.40 (mg/L) |
| Free Lambda | 13.43 (mg/L) | 12.40 (mg/L) | 5.71 - 26.30 (mg/L) |
| | Mean | Median | Total range |
| Kappa/Lambda Ratio | 0.63 | 0.60 | 0.26 - 1.65 |
In addition, the package insert includes the following statements:
1.) “The ranges provided have been obtained from a limited number of samples and are intended for guidance purposes only. Wherever possible it is strongly recommended that local ranges are generated.”
2.) “In order to demonstrate equivalence of the normal range obtained with the BNII and INTEGRA assays, 50 normal samples from UK donors aged 20 – 60 years were assayed on both BN and INTEGRA FREELITE kits”. Results of regression analysis were:
Kappa assay
(INTEGRA) = 0.932(BNII) + 1.472, R² = 0.9168;
Lambda assay
(INTEGRA) = 1.08(BNII) – 1.09, R² = 09351
N. Proposed Labeling:
The labeling is sufficient and it satisfies the requirements of 21 CFR Part 809.10.
O. Conclusion:
The submitted information in this premarket notification is complete and supports a substantial equivalence decision.
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.