Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jan 1;97(1):18-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.050.

Adverse Events Involving Radiation Oncology Medical Devices: Comprehensive Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Data, 1991 to 2015.

Author information

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.

PMID:
27979446
PMCID:
PMC5193217
DOI:
10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.08.050
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Conflict of interest statement

Drs Hattangadi-Gluth, Cervino, and Moore hold research funding from Varian Medical Systems, unrelated to the current study.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center