Clinical Evaluation of CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT)

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the 2D and 3D imaging performance of the CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanner ("investigational device") against the commercially available 2D and 3D predicate devices. The results of this study will be included in a Traditional 510(k) FDA Submission to obtain clearance to market the new CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanner in the US. The study was designed in accordance with the FDA Guidance titled "Guidance for the Submission of 510(k)'s for Solid State X-ray Imaging Devices", issued on August 6, 1999.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Conditions

Healthy

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

About this study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the 2D and 3D imaging performance of the CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanner ("investigational device") against the commercially available 2D and 3D predicate devices. The study undertaken will demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the investigational CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) 2D imaging functionality by comparing against the predicate CARESTREAM DRX-1 GOS detector used on adult cadaver specimens to capture the image pairs.

The study will demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of the investigational CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) 3D imaging functionality by comparing against the reference PHILLIPS Multi Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) scanner used on adult cadaver specimens (body part) to capture 3D volumetric exams using the anatomy of both upper and lower extremity specimens. The adult cadaver specimens will receive multiple x-ray exposures using the predicate devices for both 2D and 3D imaging. Target images from cadaver specimens will be reviewed by radiologist readers to rate diagnostic image quality, and the data will be included in a comparative evaluation.

The live human subject portion of the study will be performed on healthy volunteers. Each volunteer will sign an Informed Consent after which will receive only one 3D volumetric exam using the investigational CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) scanner. Target images will be reviewed by radiologist readers to rate diagnostic image quality according to a radiologist reader scale applicable to 3D volumetric imaging.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

Subject 18 years or older
Subject has provided informed consent
Subject is able to be positioned properly in the investigational device and be still during the exam to reduce the potential of motion in the images.
Subject(s) may have a metal screw, plate or artificial joint

Exclusion criteria

Subject is pregnant
Not able or willing to provide Informed Consent, or consent is withdrawn
Not able to collect all required case information
Subject has a history of high radiation exposure:
Has undergone radiation therapy

Treatment and study plan

Radiation

Cadaveric specimens will be imaged with 2D devices: CARESTREAM DRX-Evolution general radiograph and CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) general radiograph, and 3D devices PHILLIPS Multi Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) and CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Human subjects will be imaged with CARESTREAM Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) 3D only.

Primary outcomes

Radlex Scale for Diagnostic Quality Ratings - 2D Images

Time frame: 12 weeks after last image capture

1-1.9-Non-diagnostic Unacceptable for diagnostic purposes. Little or no clinically usable diagnostic information (e.g., gross underexposure, system failure or extensive motion artifact). Almost all such imaging should be repeated. 2-2.9-Limited Acceptable, with some technical defect (motion artifact, body habitus/poor x-ray penetration, or patient positioning may limit visualization of some body-regions but still adequate for diagnostic purposes). Not as much diagnostic information as is typical for an examination of this type, but likely sufficient. 3-3.9-Diagnostic Image quality that would be expected routinely when imaging cooperative patients. 4-Exemplary Good, most adequate for diagnostic purposes. Image quality that can serve as an example that should be emulated.
Radlex Scale for Diagnostic Quality Ratings - 3D Images High Resolution

Time frame: 12 weeks after last image capture

1-1.9-Non-diagnostic Unacceptable for diagnostic purposes. Little or no clinically usable diagnostic information (e.g., gross underexposure, system failure or extensive motion artifact). Almost all such imaging should be repeated. 2-2.9-Limited Acceptable, with some technical defect (motion artifact, body habitus/poor x-ray penetration, or patient positioning may limit visualization of some body-regions but still adequate for diagnostic purposes). Not as much diagnostic information as is typical for an examination of this type, but likely sufficient. 3-3.9-Diagnostic Image quality that would be expected routinely when imaging cooperative patients. 4-Exemplary Good, most adequate for diagnostic purposes. Image quality that can serve as an example that should be emulated.
Radlex Scale for Diagnostic Quality Ratings - 3D Images FDK

Time frame: 12 weeks after last image capture

1-1.9-Non-diagnostic Unacceptable for diagnostic purposes. Little or no clinically usable diagnostic information (e.g., gross underexposure, system failure or extensive motion artifact). Almost all such imaging should be repeated. 2-2.9-Limited Acceptable, with some technical defect (motion artifact, body habitus/poor x-ray penetration, or patient positioning may limit visualization of some body-regions but still adequate for diagnostic purposes). Not as much diagnostic information as is typical for an examination of this type, but likely sufficient. 3-3.9-Diagnostic Image quality that would be expected routinely when imaging cooperative patients. 4-Exemplary Good, most adequate for diagnostic purposes. Image quality that can serve as an example that should be emulated.
Radlex Scale for Diagnostic Quality Ratings - 3D Images SND

Time frame: 12 weeks after last image capture

1-1.9-Non-diagnostic Unacceptable for diagnostic purposes. Little or no clinically usable diagnostic information (e.g., gross underexposure, system failure or extensive motion artifact). Almost all such imaging should be repeated. 2-2.9-Limited Acceptable, with some technical defect (motion artifact, body habitus/poor x-ray penetration, or patient positioning may limit visualization of some body-regions but still adequate for diagnostic purposes). Not as much diagnostic information as is typical for an examination of this type, but likely sufficient. 3-3.9-Diagnostic Image quality that would be expected routinely when imaging cooperative patients. 4-Exemplary Good, most adequate for diagnostic purposes. Image quality that can serve as an example that should be emulated.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Carestream Health, Inc.

Industry

Registry information

Important dates

Study start: 2015
Primary completion: 2015
Study completion: 2015
First posted: May 15, 2015
Registry last updated: Jan 30, 2017

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.

Completed