Ghobadi Comeron W, Hayman Emily L, Finkle Joshua H, Walter Jessica R, Xu Shuai
Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
J Am Coll Radiol. 2017 Jan;14(1):24-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.014.
The aim of this study was to critically assess the clinical evidence leading to radiologic medical device approvals via the premarket approval pathway from 2000 to 2015.
This study used the publically available FDA premarket database for radiologic device approvals over the past 15 years (September 1, 2000, to August 31, 2015). Approval characteristics were collected for each device, and statistical analysis was performed on the data for each pivotal trial. Additionally, methodological quality of the pivotal trial was determined using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool.
Twenty-three class III radiologic device approvals were identified, with breast imaging accounting for 16 (70%) and computer-aided detection software accounting for 9 (39%) approvals. The median premarket approval time was 475 days (range, 180-1,116). Twenty-one devices were approved on the basis of multireader, multicenter studies, one on the basis of a randomized controlled trial, and one on the basis of a preclinical technical equivalence trial. The median number of patients per pivotal trial was 201 (range, 25-3,946). Twenty-six of the 34 pivotal trials (76%) had at least one methodologic bias. Breast imaging devices had a greater number of patients per pivotal trial (P = .009) and more prospective studies. With regard to all modalities, increased time to device approval correlated with weaker trial quality (r = 0.600, P < .001).
Radiologic devices are largely approved by multireader, multicenter studies, the recommended standard for assessing diagnostic technologies. Given that radiologic devices play a key role in modern medicine, further efforts should be made to increase transparency of clinical data leading to approval.
本研究旨在严格评估2000年至2015年期间通过上市前批准途径获得放射医学设备批准的临床证据。
本研究使用了美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)公开的过去15年(2000年9月1日至2015年8月31日)放射设备批准的上市前数据库。收集每个设备的批准特征,并对每个关键试验的数据进行统计分析。此外,使用诊断准确性研究质量评估工具确定关键试验的方法学质量。
确定了23项III类放射设备批准,其中乳腺成像设备占16项(70%),计算机辅助检测软件占9项(39%)批准。上市前批准的中位时间为475天(范围为180 - 1116天)。21项设备基于多读者、多中心研究获得批准,1项基于随机对照试验获得批准,1项基于临床前技术等效性试验获得批准。每个关键试验的患者中位数为201例(范围为25 - 3946例)。34项关键试验中的26项(76%)至少存在一种方法学偏倚。乳腺成像设备在每个关键试验中的患者数量更多(P = 0.009),且前瞻性研究更多。对于所有模态,设备批准时间的增加与试验质量较弱相关(r = 0.600,P < 0.001)。
放射设备大多通过多读者、多中心研究获得批准,这是评估诊断技术的推荐标准。鉴于放射设备在现代医学中发挥关键作用,应进一步努力提高导致批准的临床数据的透明度。