FDA Panel Backs Device to Treat Brain Tumors
Advisory Panel Recommends Approval of NovoTTF for Treatment of Glioblastoma
March 17, 2011 -- An expert panel has advised the FDA to approve a new kind of device to treat recurrent glioblastoma, an aggressive and highly fatal kind of brain tumor.
The FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of its advisory panels, though it commonly does.
The NovoTTF-100A System (NovoTTF) is designed to treat tumors by zapping them with an intermediate-frequency electrical field that’s generated by a 6-pound battery pack that a patient carries in a satchel or backpack.
It has been studied for use in patients whose cancer has returned after treatment with standard treatments such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
The device has two parts: the battery pack and wires that attach to a sheath of electrodes that are attached to the scalp. The rechargeable batteries must be replaced every three hours. And patients are advised to wear the electrodes for at least 18 hours.
The twelve voting members of the Neurological Devices Advisory Panel were asked to vote on three questions: whether or not they considered the device to be safe; whether they considered it to be effective; and whether or not the benefits of using the device outweighed the risks.
Split Vote on Effectiveness
The panel voted 12-0 that the device was safe enough for use in a terminally ill population.
On the question of effectiveness, however, the panel was deeply divided, and the vote split with six members voting yes and six voting no.
The chairman of the panel, Robert Hurst, MD, a professor of radiology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, was called on to break the tie. He voted yes.
In the final vote, on whether the benefits outweighed the risks, the vote was 7 yes, 3 no, with 2 members abstaining.
In explaining her votes, Sarah H. Lisanby, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, voiced the concerns of many on the panel.
“I think that the technology this is based on could be a real breakthrough,” she says.
Lisanby, like many on the panel, was concerned by the small size and design flaws that likely biased the results of the clinical trial that was presented to determine approval.