Michael J Connor1, Deborah C Marshall2, Vitali Moiseenko2, Kevin Moore2, Laura Cervino2, Todd Atwood2, Parag Sanghvi2, Arno J Mundt2, Todd Pawlicki2, Abram Recht3, Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth4. 1. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of California Irvine School of Medicine, Irvine, California. 2. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Radiation Medicine and Applied Sciences, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. Electronic address: jhattangadi@ucsd.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions. RESULTS: There were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P<.001). RODs were more likely to be evaluated by the manufacturer after an event (46.9% vs 33.0%) but less likely to be recalled (10.5% vs 37.9%) (P<.001). Device age and time since 510(k) approval were shorter among RODs (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other devices, RODs may experience adverse events sooner after manufacture and market approval. Close postmarket surveillance, improved software design, and manufacturer-user training may help mitigate these events.
PURPOSE: Radiation oncology relies on rapidly evolving technology and highly complex processes. The US Food and Drug Administration collects reports of adverse events related to medical devices. We sought to characterize all events involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration's postmarket surveillance Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology devices. METHODS AND MATERIALS: MAUDE data on RODs from 1991 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems) and 5 device problem categories (software, mechanical, electrical, user error, and dose delivery impact). Outcomes included whether the device was evaluated by the manufacturer, adverse event type, remedial action, problem code, device age, and time since 510(k) approval. Descriptive statistics were performed with linear regression of time-series data. Results for RODs were compared with those for other devices by the Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions. RESULTS: There were 4234 ROD and 4,985,698 other device adverse event reports. Adverse event reports increased over time, and events involving RODs peaked in 2011. Most ROD reports involved external beam therapy (50.8%), followed by brachytherapy (24.9%) and treatment planning systems (21.6%). The top problem types were software (30.4%), mechanical (20.9%), and user error (20.4%). RODs differed significantly from other devices in each outcome (P<.001). RODs were more likely to be evaluated by the manufacturer after an event (46.9% vs 33.0%) but less likely to be recalled (10.5% vs 37.9%) (P<.001). Device age and time since 510(k) approval were shorter among RODs (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other devices, RODs may experience adverse events sooner after manufacture and market approval. Close postmarket surveillance, improved software design, and manufacturer-user training may help mitigate these events.
Authors: Eric E Klein; Joseph Hanley; John Bayouth; Fang-Fang Yin; William Simon; Sean Dresser; Christopher Serago; Francisco Aguirre; Lijun Ma; Bijan Arjomandy; Chihray Liu; Carlos Sandin; Todd Holmes Journal: Med Phys Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: J A Purdy; P J Biggs; C Bowers; E Dally; W Downs; B A Fraass; C J Karzmark; F Khan; P Morgan; R Morton Journal: Med Phys Date: 1993 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: G J Kutcher; L Coia; M Gillin; W F Hanson; S Leibel; R J Morton; J R Palta; J A Purdy; L E Reinstein; G K Svensson Journal: Med Phys Date: 1994-04 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: G Leunens; J Verstraete; W Van den Bogaert; J Van Dam; A Dutreix; E van der Schueren Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Minh-Phuong Huynh-Le; Randall C Shults; Michael J Connor; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Hani M Rayess; Peter F Svider; Curtis Hanba; Vivek Sagar Patel; Louis M DeJoseph; Michael Carron; Giancarlo F Zuliani Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Danielle S Bitterman; Daniel N Cagney; Lisa L Singer; Paul L Nguyen; Paul J Catalano; Raymond H Mak Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506