• AI
  • Molecular Imaging
  • CT
  • X-Ray
  • Ultrasound
  • MRI
  • Facility Management
  • Mammography

FDA offers regulatory alternative to digital mammography vendors


FDA offers regulatory alternative to digital mammography vendorsCDRH proposes PMA for clearanceSome full-field digital mammography developers received a shock this month when the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and

FDA offers regulatory alternative to digital mammography vendors

CDRH proposes PMA for clearance

Some full-field digital mammography developers received a shock this month when the Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health articulated its latest position on the digital mammography approval process. In faxed letters to those manufacturers with which it has already been in communication regarding the technology, the CDRH recommended a surprising alternative to 510(k) applications: premarket approvals, or PMAs.

The agency’s suggestion is an attempt to offer manufacturers a new path to clearance, since, the CDRH believes, establishing equivalence between digital and film-screen mammography, as required for a 510(k), is difficult to do without a full-scale clinical trial. The FDA has been sharply criticized in recent years for its digital mammography guidelines, which require vendors to establish equivalence between full-field digital and film images within a 90% to 95% correlation range. Industry and clinical experts have repeatedly emphasized that this correlation is almost impossible, due to the human variability between readings of the same film, and have argued for speedy clearance of what they believe to be a better technology than conventional film-screen.

Once published, the FDA’s new guidance for pursuing digital mammography clearance is sure to cause consternation among digital mammography developers. Industry watchers fear that manufacturers will have to begin again to gather clinical data appropriate for the PMA, and therefore will be further delayed in achieving regulatory clearance—and will incur hefty added expense. Representatives from several vendors developing digital mammography systems were unavailable for comment on the new guidance.

After assessing other clinical models that attempt to establish the equivalence of full-field digital mammography to film-screen, the FDA has come to the conclusion that the full-scale study is crucial to a 510(k) application. But since many vendors are unwilling or unable to undertake this kind of study, the agency plans to suggest the PMA as an option for clearance, according to Dr. Susan Alpert, director of the FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation. A PMA does not require vendors to establish equivalence to existing technology like the 510(k) does, but does require them to prove the efficacy and safety of the product under review.

“We’re not saying that no one can do the 510(k), that no one can come up with data from a trial that would establish equivalency,” Alpert said. “If a company can come up with an effective trial design and justify it, more power to (them). But we’ve concluded that we can’t figure out a way to do a 510(k) without a full-scale study, and we’re offering the PMA as a regulatory option.”

Even with the published 1996 guidance, the PMA has always been an option for digital mammography developers, Alpert said. Yet vendors tend to avoid it, viewing it as a more time-consuming, rigorous process than the 510(k). Since the PMA covers devices considered higher risk, it carries requirements that the 510(k) process does not: Applicants must provide manufacturing information in more detail than is required for a 510(k), and must make annual reports on any design changes to the equipment under review, perhaps conducting additional clinical studies to evaluate the effect of the changes on the device.

After a meeting last year to solicit feedback, the FDA said that it would publish new guidance that took industry experts’ critiques into consideration. The agency expected to publish that guidance this month, but has again been delayed as it incorporates its new thinking into the document. When published, the guidance will most likely include a recommendation to vendors to consider the PMA, as well as suggestions for various types of clinical trials, including the full-scale study the agency believes is necessary to prove equivalence with film-screen.

But companies shouldn’t be intimidated by the PMA, according to Alpert. Companies with mature development programs for digital mammography may receive clearance in less time, she said.

“All the clinical studies (that) companies have been doing are what make the PMA doable,” she said. “Vendors can use the work they’ve done thus far in a PMA application. Their work is not a loss, and it may be sufficient to support a PMA.”

Related Videos
Where the USPSTF Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Fall Short: An Interview with Stacy Smith-Foley, MD
Nina Kottler, MD, MS
Radiology Challenges with Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Breast Implants
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.