Michael J Connor1, Kathryn Tringale2, Vitali Moiseenko2, Deborah C Marshall2, Kevin Moore2, Laura Cervino2, Todd Atwood2, Derek Brown2, 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; 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: To analyze all recalls involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recall database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology device recalls to identify discipline-specific trends that may inform improvements in device safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Recall data on RODs from 2002 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems). Outcomes included determined cause of recall, recall class (severity), quantity in commerce, time until recall termination (date FDA determines recall is complete), 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 Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions. RESULTS: There were 502 ROD recalls and 9534 other class II device recalls during 2002 to 2015. Most recalls were for external beam devices (66.7%) and planning systems (22.9%), and recall events peaked in 2011. Radiation oncology devices differed significantly from other devices in all recall outcomes (P≤.04). Recall cause was commonly software related (49% vs 10% for other devices). Recall severity was more often moderate among RODs (97.6% vs 87.2%) instead of severe (0.2% vs 4.4%; P<.001). Time from 510(k) market approval to recall was shorter among RODs (P<.001) and progressively shortened over time. Radiation oncology devices had fewer recalled devices in commerce than other devices (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other class II devices, RODs experience recalls sooner after market approval and are trending sooner still. Most of these recalls were moderate in severity, and software issues are prevalent. Comprehensive analysis of recall data can identify areas for device improvement, such as better system design among RODs.
PURPOSE: To analyze all recalls involving radiation oncology devices (RODs) from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s recall database, comparing these with non-radiation oncology device recalls to identify discipline-specific trends that may inform improvements in device safety. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Recall data on RODs from 2002 to 2015 were sorted into 4 product categories (external beam, brachytherapy, planning systems, and simulation systems). Outcomes included determined cause of recall, recall class (severity), quantity in commerce, time until recall termination (date FDA determines recall is complete), 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 Pearson χ2 test for categorical data and 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for distributions. RESULTS: There were 502 ROD recalls and 9534 other class II device recalls during 2002 to 2015. Most recalls were for external beam devices (66.7%) and planning systems (22.9%), and recall events peaked in 2011. Radiation oncology devices differed significantly from other devices in all recall outcomes (P≤.04). Recall cause was commonly software related (49% vs 10% for other devices). Recall severity was more often moderate among RODs (97.6% vs 87.2%) instead of severe (0.2% vs 4.4%; P<.001). Time from 510(k) market approval to recall was shorter among RODs (P<.001) and progressively shortened over time. Radiation oncology devices had fewer recalled devices in commerce than other devices (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other class II devices, RODs experience recalls sooner after market approval and are trending sooner still. Most of these recalls were moderate in severity, and software issues are prevalent. Comprehensive analysis of recall data can identify areas for device improvement, such as better system design among RODs.
Authors: Michael J Connor; Deborah C Marshall; Vitali Moiseenko; Kevin Moore; Laura Cervino; Todd Atwood; Parag Sanghvi; Arno J Mundt; Todd Pawlicki; Abram Recht; Jona A Hattangadi-Gluth Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Charles S Day; David J Park; Frederick S Rozenshteyn; Nana Owusu-Sarpong; Aldebarani Gonzalez Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Taha A Kass-Hout; Zhiheng Xu; Matthew Mohebbi; Hans Nelsen; Adam Baker; Jonathan Levine; Elaine Johanson; Roselie A Bright Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 4.497
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: 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