MammaPrint is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test service, performed in a central laboratory, using the gene expression profile of fresh breast cancer tissue samples to assess a patient's risk for distant metastasis (up to 10 years for patients less than 61 years old, up to 5 years for patients' ≥ 61 years). The test is performed for breast cancer patients with Stage I or Stage II disease, with tumor size <= 5.0 cm and who are lymph node negative. The MammaPrint result is indicated for use by physicians as a prognostic marker only, along with other clinicopathological factors.
Device Story
MammaPrint is a central laboratory-based gene expression profiling service for breast cancer prognosis. Input: fresh breast cancer tissue samples. Process: RNA isolation from tumor tissue; DNAse treatment; linear amplification and labeling; hybridization to MammaPrint microarray; scanning; data acquisition. Operation: sample expression profile correlated to a reference template (mean expression of 44 tumors with known good clinical outcome) to determine molecular profile (Low Risk vs. High Risk). Output: prognostic risk assessment provided to physicians. Used as a marker alongside other clinicopathological factors to inform clinical decision-making regarding patient prognosis.
Clinical Evidence
No clinical trials presented. Analytical performance validation conducted comparing new equipment (scanners and bio-analyzers) and U.S. vs. European laboratory sites. Metrics included Passing and Bablok regression, Bland & Altman analysis, and Wilcoxon signed ranks test for RIN measurements. Results showed no significant difference in RNA quality or MammaPrint indices between sites or equipment, meeting predefined acceptance criteria.
Technological Characteristics
Microarray-based gene expression analysis system. Components include RNA isolation, amplification, labeling, and hybridization to MammaPrint Low (HD) 8-pack arrays. Analysis involves microarray scanners and bio-analyzers for quality control (RIN > 7).
Indications for Use
Indicated for breast cancer patients with Stage I or II disease, tumor size ≤ 5.0 cm, and lymph node negative status. Used to assess risk of distant metastasis (up to 10 years for patients < 61 years; up to 5 years for patients ≥ 61 years).
Regulatory Classification
Identification
A gene expression profiling test system for breast cancer prognosis is a device that measures the ribonucleic acid (RNA) expression level of multiple genes and combines this information to yield a signature (pattern or classifier or index) to aid in prognosis of previously diagnosed breast cancer.
Special Controls
The device is classified as Class II under regulation 21 CFR 866.6040 with special controls. The special control guidance document "Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Gene expression profiling test system for breast cancer prognosis" is available at http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/oivd/guidance/1627.html.
*Classification.* Class II (special controls). The special control is FDA's guidance document entitled “Class II Special Controls Guidance Document: Gene Expression Profiling Test System for Breast Cancer Prognosis.” See § 866.1(e) for the availability of this guidance document.
Predicate Devices
MammaPrint (k081092)
Reference Devices
MammaPrint (k080252)
Submission Summary (Full Text)
{0}------------------------------------------------
#### Section 5: 510(k) Summary
| 1. Assigned 510(k) number | |
|-------------------------------|--|
| The assigned 510(k) number is | |
JAN 2 8 2011
2. Company
Agendia BV Science Park 406 1098XH Amsterdam The Netherlands Telephone : 31 20 462 1500
3. Contact
Guido Brink, Senior Director Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance
4. Date Prepared
May 21, 2010
5. Proprietary Name
MammaPrint®
#### 6. Classification Name
Gene expression profiling test system, for breast cancer prognosis.
# 7. Common Name
Multivariate device for cancer prognosis
#### 8. Classification
Class II, regulated under 21 CFR 866.6040, product code NYI
## 9. Predicate Device
Agendia BV's MammaPrint (k081092)
{1}------------------------------------------------
### 10. Device Description
The MammaPrint service is a microarray based gene expression analysis of a tumor. The analysis is based on several processes: isolation of RNA from frozen tumor tissue sections. DNA'se treatment of isolated RNA, linear amplification and labeling of DNA'se treated RNA, cRNA purification, hybridization of the cRNA to the MammaPrint microarray, scanning the MammaPrint microarray and data acquisition (feature extraction), calculation and determination of the risk of recurrence in breast cancer patients.
The MammaPrint analysis is designed to determine the gene activity of specific genes in a tissue sample compared to a reference standard. The result is an expression profile, or fingerprint, of the sample.
The correlation of the sample expression profile to a template (the mean expression profile of 44 tumors with a known good clinical outcome) is calculated and the molecular profile of the sample is determined (Low Risk, High Risk).
### 11. Intended Use
MammaPrint is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test service, performed in a central laboratory, using the gene expression profile of fresh breast cancer tissue samples to assess a patient's risk for distant metastasis (up to 10 years for patients less than 61 years old, up to 5 years for patients' ≥ 61 years).
The test is performed for breast cancer patients with Stage I or Stage II disease, with tumor size <= 5.0 cm and who are lymph node negative. The MammaPrint result is indicated for use by physicians as a prognostic marker only, along with other clinicopathological factors.
{2}------------------------------------------------
# 12. Performance Data (non-clinical)
## Analytical performance
MammaPrint analytical (i.e., non-clinical) performance characteristics investigated comprise Precision and Reproducibility compared to the predicate device.
## 1 - Micro Array Scanners
In concordance with experiments performed for an additional scanner clearance in k080252, experiments were performed.
A selection of 25 slides performed as dual hybridizations from which MammaPrint Indices of the 1ª scan was generated using the FDA cleared scanners (serial US45103019 and US22502555) were used, consisted of approximately 100 samples and 20 times the control samples LRC and HRC.
The samples and controls were analyzed during regular diagnostics. For the scanner validation these same 25 slides were scanned a second time using the new scanners (US810R3210 and US811R3213). Txt files generated as output were used to generate MammaPrint Indices following standard procedures. Subsequently MammaPrint Indices of both scans were compared. The hybridized samples included: three samples with either high, low, borderline results with repeated results were generated per sample. Additionally, control samples LRC and HRC were included. MammaPrint indices were compared between both scans using Passing and Bablok regression analysis and a comparison of the variance per scanner.
The difference between the mean, median and standard deviation for all samples levels between both scanners fall within the accepted variance of the predicate device of 1.96*0.030.
### 2 – Bio Analyzers
A selection of about 60 samples that cover the complete RIN measuring range was analyzed on the FDA cleared Bio-analyzers (Serial nr DE24802382 and DE54700497), as well as the new Bio-Analyzers (Serial nr DE72901757 and DE72902838).
Depending on the distribution of the data a statistical test was performed to determine if there is a significant difference in RIN measurements between both Bio-analyzers.
The RIN measurements of the samples on both Bio-Analyzers were collected. Subsequently the D'Agostino-Pearson test on the RIN differences of both analyzers showed that there a normal distribution (p<0.0001).
{3}------------------------------------------------
Therefore a Wilcoxon signed ranks test was used which showed that there was no significant difference in RIN measurements between the FDA cleared and New Bioanalyzers (p=0.46 and p=0.47 respectively).
### 3 - Central Laboratory sites Europe and U.S.
Validation of MammaPrint at the European and U.S. central laboratories was performed in two parts. All experiments were performed using FDA cleared equipment and in compliance with FDA cleared MammaPrint procedures.
#### PART 1: RNA ISOLATION
Samples were selected based on sufficient tissue material available for sectioning and isolation at the US laboratory (Lab 2). These samples have previously shown to generate acceptable quality of RNA at the Amsterdam laboratory (Lab 1). After isolation the concentration and RNA quality (RNA integrity number, RIN) was assessed using the Bioanalyzers; all values have to meet the standard quality controls for MammaPrint (RIN>7). Isolations were performed on three different days, twelve samples each day, in total 36 samples.
#### PART 2: AMPLIFICATION/LABELING AND HYBRIDIZATION
For validation of the labeling, amplification and hybridization steps of MammaPrint at the US lab (Lab 2). RNA from 99 samples was used. All samples have been previously subjected to a diagnostic MammaPrint test at the Amsterdam Lab (Lab 1). Based on the Amsterdam result the following result distribution was selected:
- Hiah risk: n=54 (54.5%) -
- । Low risk: n=38 (38.3%)
- -Borderline: n=7 (7.1%)
RNA was amplified, labeled and hybridized according to standard MammaPrint protocols on FDA cleared MammaPrint Low (HD) 8-pack array.
The 99 samples the standard control samples (Low Risk Control and High Risk Control) were analyzed. To show MammaPrint stability over time and to determine variation in MammaPrint Index, LRC and HRC were analyzed on each labeling day and on additional days resulting in 20 data points per control sample.
{4}------------------------------------------------
Statistical analysis that have been performed on the data are:
- . Passing and Bablok regression analysis
- . Bland & Altman analysis
- McNEMARS TEST
- . Analysis on Control Pools: LRC AND HRC
The studies show that there is no significant difference in RNA quality of RIN measurement between Amsterdam (L1) and US lab (L2). All results comply with the predefined validation acceptance criteria as described in the validation plan.
Moreover when comparing of MammaPrint Index and Outcome, it is concluded that there is no significant difference in MammaPrint Indices between European / Dutch (L1) and US / California (L2) lab. All results comply with the predefined validation acceptance criteria as described in the validation plan.
#### 14. Conclusion
MammaPrint is a clinically and analytically accurate prognostic marker for providing a risk assessment of distant metastasis of breast cancer when performed in either Agendia's European or US central laboratory.
{5}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/5/Picture/1 description: The image shows the logo for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. The logo consists of a circular seal with the text "DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES • USA" around the perimeter. Inside the circle is an emblem featuring a stylized human figure with outstretched arms, representing care and protection.
#### Public Health Service
Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993
Agendia BV c/o Mr. Guido Brink Director, Regulatory Affairs Science Park 406 1098 XH Amsterdam The Netherlands
JAN 2 8 2011
Re: k101454
Trade/Device Name: MammaPrint® Regulation Number: 21 CFR§866.6040 Regulation Name: expression profiling test system for breast cancer prognosis Regulatory Class: Class II Product Code: NYI Dated: December 23, 2010 Received: December 27, 2010
Dear Mr. Brink:
We have reviewed your Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market the device referenced above and have determined the device is substantially equivalent (for the indications for use stated in the enclosure) to legally marketed predicate devices marketed in interstate commerce prior to May 28, 1976, the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments, or to devices that have been reclassified in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Food, Drig, and Cosmetic Act (Act) that do not require approval of a premarket approval application (PMA). You may, therefore, market the device, subject to the general controls provisions of the Act. The general controls provisions of the Act include requirements for annual registration, listing of devices, good manufacturing practice, labeling, and prohibitions against misbranding and adulteration.
If your device is classified (see above) into class II (Special Controls), it may be subject to such additional controls. Existing major regulations affecting your device can be found in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Parts 800 to 895. In addition, FDA may publish frinther announcements concerning your device in the Federal Register.
Please be advised that FDA's issuance of a substantial equivalence determination does not mean that FDA has made a determination that your device complies with other requirements of the Act or any Federal statutes and regulations administered by other Federal agencies. You must
{6}------------------------------------------------
Page 2 – Mr. Guido Brink
comply with all the Act's requirements, including, but not limited to: registration and listing (21 CFR Part 807); labeling (21 CFR Parts 801 and 809); medical device reporting (reporting of medical device-related adverse events) (21 CFR 803); and good manufacturing practice requirements as set forth in the quality systems (QS) regulation (21 CFR Part 820). This letter will allow you to begin marketing your device as described in your Section 510(k) premarket notification. The FDA finding of substantial equivalence of your device to a legally marketed predicate device results in a classification for your device and thus, permits your device to proceed to the market.
ff you desire specific advice for your device on our labeling regulation (21 CFR Parts 801 and 809), please contact the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety at (301) 796-5450. Also, please note the regulation entitled, "Misbranding by reference to premarket notification" (21 CFR Part 807.97). For questions regarding the reporting of adverse events under the MDR regulation (21 CFR Part 803), please go to http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ReportaProblem/default.htm for the CDRH's Office of Surveillance and Biometrics/Division of Postmarket Surveillance.
You may obtain other general information on your responsibilities under the Act from the Division of Small Manufacturers, International and Consumer Assistance at its toll-free number (800) 638-2041 or (301) 796-7100 or at its Internet address http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/industry/support/index.html.
Sincerely yours,
M Chan
Maria M. Chan, Ph.D. Director · Division of Immunology and Hematology Devices Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety Center for Devices and Radiological Health
Enclosure
{7}------------------------------------------------
Image /page/7/Picture/15 description: The image shows a logo with the word "agenda" in a stylized font. Above the word "agenda" is a graphic that resembles a fingerprint or a stylized representation of a brain. Below the word "agenda" is a smaller text, which is difficult to read due to the image quality.
#### ection 4: Indications for Use Statement
# Indications for Use Form
K101454 510(k) Number (if known):
Device Name: MammaPrint®
Indications for Use:
MammaPrint is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test service, performed in a central laboratory, using the gene expression profile of fresh breast cancer tissue samples to assess a patients' risk for distant metastasis (up to 10 years for patients less than 61 years old, up to 5 years for patients' ≥ 61 years).
The test is performed for breast cancer patients with Stage I or Stage II disease, with a tumor size of ≤ 5.0 cm and lymph node negative. The MammaPrint result is indicated for use by physicians as a prognostic marker only, along with a other clinicopathological factors.
Prescription Use XX (Part 21 CFR 801 Subpart D) AND/OR
Over-The-Counter Use (21 CFR 801 Subpart C)
(PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE-CONTINUE ON ANOTHER PAGE OF NEEDED)
Concurrence of CDRH, Office of Device Evaluation (ODE)
| | <img alt="signature" src="signature.png"/> | | Page 1 of 1 |
|--|--------------------------------------------|--|-------------|
| | Division Sign-Off | | |
Office of In Vitro Diagnostic
Device Evaluation and Safety
| | K101454 | |
|--|---------|--|
|--|---------|--|
Agendia BV - Amsterdam 2010-1061 Additional Scanner
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.