Radiation Oncology Device Approval in the United States and Canada.
fda
health canada
medical device
radiation oncology
Journal
Cureus
ISSN: 2168-8184
Titre abrégé: Cureus
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101596737
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2019
01 Apr 2019
Historique:
entrez:
14
6
2019
pubmed:
14
6
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background Medical devices are a crucial component in the field of radiation oncology. The review and licensing of radiation oncology devices (RODs) is managed on a national basis in Canada by Health Canada and in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The purpose of this study was to examine differences in ROD licensing timelines between Health Canada and the FDA that may impact the ability of Canadians to access the most up-to-date radiation oncology care. Methods A list of ROD was compiled by searching keywords, manufacturers, and proprietary device names in the publicly accessible Canadian Medical Devices Active Licence Listing (MDALL) and the American Establishment Registration & Device Listing and the 510(k) Premarket Notification database. ROD licensing dates were then obtained through both databases. ROD were included if they were licensed in both countries. Results A total of 51 RODs were included in this study and it was found that 71% (36/51) were issued licenses for sale in the United States before Canada, at a mean of 506 days sooner (median [IQR] = 282 [326.5]). No trends in licensing dates were found by stratifying devices by type. Analyses were limited to the date of licensing only, as Health Canada provided no publicly-available information regarding submission milestones such as first submission date for the RODs studied. Conclusions The majority of radiation oncology devices examined were licensed for sale in the USA before Canada. Due to the absence of publicly available information regarding initial ROD application date, we cannot evaluate the impact of the approval process on the overall difference in licensing date. Importantly, this research highlights a lack of publicly-available information from Health Canada regarding the medical device approval process for the radiation oncology devices studied herein.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31192056
doi: 10.7759/cureus.4351
pmc: PMC6550514
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e4351Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
BMC Med Ethics. 2010 Aug 26;11:14
pubmed: 20738887
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 14;366(24):2284-93
pubmed: 22591257
Cancer. 2015 May 15;121(10):1688-93
pubmed: 25604014
J Am Coll Surg. 2015 May;220(5):940-50
pubmed: 25840536
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jun 1;98(2):438-446
pubmed: 28463163
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018 Jan;52(1):62-69
pubmed: 29714608