FDA Product Review Backlog is Clearing Up The medical imaging industry was surprised when the logjam ofmedical device reviews at the Food and Drug Administration brokeearlier this year, but Susan Alpert, director of the FDA's Officeof Device
The medical imaging industry was surprised when the logjam ofmedical device reviews at the Food and Drug Administration brokeearlier this year, but Susan Alpert, director of the FDA's Officeof Device Evaluation, was not. Since she took control of ODE lastJuly, Alpert has implemented several initiatives aimed at speedingup action on submissions while streamlining the flow of new ones.
A major accomplishment has been the development of an expeditedreview process that includes a triage system for bringing high-prioritydevices to the front of the product review queue. Another is arefusal-to-accept policy designed to keep incomplete submissionsfrom clogging the system.
"We have been able to clear groups of 510(k)s by savingour resources for the more complicated submissions that need moreintense scientific review," Alpert said. "Refusing toaccept (inadequately prepared submissions) has also worked verywell for us. The applications that aren't complete are sent backto the sponsor quickly."
Rejected applications are accompanied by a letter explainingwhy they were not accepted and a checklist that tells companieswhat the FDA wants in revised applications, Alpert said.
These and other improvements in the review process have ledto progress in reducing the backlog of imaging device submissions(see chart). Since last fall, the radiology community has welcomeda half-dozen new systems in MRI, ultrasound, nuclear medicineand PACS, as well as an imaging-based neurosurgical tool.
Most medical imaging devices qualify for the less demanding510(k) review process because they or similar devices were onthe market prior to 1976, when the law requiring FDA clearancefor marketing was put into effect. An exception are MRI scanners,which were reclassified several years ago from the more restrictivepremarket approval (PMA) process to the 510(k) when regulatorsdecided that the devices did not pose a threat to the health ofpatients.
Alpert acknowledged that despite recent progress, the battleto get the FDA up to date on device submissions is still far fromwon. Nagging problems continue to delay the process. Instancesof devices that fail to move forward in the queue continue tocrop up. In addition, scientists from the Office of Science andTechnology who were sent temporarily to ODE to help with productreviews will soon return to their regular positions.
There are three common reasons why a product application stalls,according to Alpert: (bullet)a reviewer with the expertise tohandle the application may not be available; (bullet)the reviewerhandling the application leaves the agency or is transferred toanother job; or (bullet)the reviewer is bogged down in other applications.
One of the toughest problems to handle is the frustrationof companies that sought FDA assistance in defining the informationor designing the clinical trial required by the FDA, only to havea different reviewer raise questions about the submission.
"We are doing everything we can to keep that from happening,"Alpert said."But there are going to be individual differencesin the way reviewers do their work."
There are other reasons behind review delays at the FDA. Oneis the increasing sophistication of the submissions coming intothe agency.
"The complexity of what we receive (in submissions) hasincreased and that has had an effect on the information comingin, for the 510(k) process particularly," Alpert said. "Inaddition, we have increased the level of science and the levelof detail we expect to see in 510(k)s. They are more complex andcontain more detailed scientific information than they did fiveor 10 years ago."
The average review time for a 510(k) submission is hoveringaround 200 days, a period Alpert considers unacceptable. Despitethe flurry of new clearances issued, that number stubbornly refusesto drop.
"It's important to recognize that it took several yearsto build the backlog," she said. "It is going to bewith us for some time, but we are trying to reduce its proportions."
Can MRI-Guided Transurethral Ultrasound Ablation Have an Impact for Localized Prostate Cancer?
December 11th 2023Follow-up MRI imaging one year after transurethral ultrasound ablation revealed approximately 50 percent decreases in prostate volume and median PSA density, according to recently presented research findings at the 2023 Society of Urologic Oncology (SUO) Annual Meeting.
What a New Mammography Study Reveals About BMI, Race, Ethnicity and Advanced Breast Cancer Risk
December 8th 2023In a new study examining population attributable risk proportions (PARPs) based on data from over three million screening mammography exams, researchers found that postmenopausal Black women had the highest BMI-related PARP and premenopausal Asian and Pacific Islander women had the highest breast density-related PARP for advanced breast cancer.
Study: Contrast-Enhanced Mammography Changes Surgical Plan in 22.5 Percent of Breast Cancer Cases
December 7th 2023Contrast-enhanced mammography detected additional lesions in 43 percent of patients and led to additional biopsies in 18.2 percent of patients, over half of whom had malignant lesions, according to a study of over 500 women presented at the recent Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) conference.
What a New Study Reveals About Adjunctive DBT and Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer
December 6th 2023The combination of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and digital mammography had a 21.6 higher invasive breast cancer detection rate for stage 1 tumors than digital mammography alone, according to a new study involving nearly 100,000 women.