Off-label use of medical products in radiation therapy: Summary of the Report of AAPM Task Group No. 121

Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53705, USA.
Medical Physics (Impact Factor: 2.64). 05/2010; 37(5):2300-11. DOI: 10.1118/1.3392286
Source: PubMed


Medical products (devices, drugs, or biologics) contain information in their labeling regarding the manner in which the manufacturer has determined that the products can be used in a safe and effective manner. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves medical products for use for these specific indications which are part of the medical product's labeling. When medical products are used in a manner not specified in the labeling, it is commonly referred to as off-label use. The practice of medicine allows for this off-label use to treat individual patients, but the ethical and legal implications for such unapproved use can be confusing. Although the responsibility and, ultimately, the liability for off-label use often rests with the prescribing physician, medical physicists and others are also responsible for the safe and proper use of the medical products. When these products are used for purposes other than which they were approved, it is important for medical physicists to understand their responsibilities. In the United States, medical products can only be marketed if officially cleared, approved, or licensed by the FDA; they can be used if they are not subject to or specifically exempt from FDA regulations, or if they are being used in research with the appropriate regulatory safeguards. Medical devices are either cleared or approved by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Drugs are approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, and biological products such as vaccines or blood are licensed under a biologics license agreement by FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. For the purpose of this report, the process by which the FDA eventually clears, approves, or licenses such products for marketing in the United States will be referred to as approval. This report summarizes the various ways medical products, primarily medical devices, can legally be brought to market in the United States, and includes a discussion of the approval process, along with manufacturers' responsibilities, labeling, marketing and promotion, and off-label use. This is an educational and descriptive report and does not contain prescriptive recommendations. This report addresses the role of the medical physicist in clinical situations involving off-label use. Case studies in radiation therapy are presented. Any mention of commercial products is for identification only; it does not imply recommendations or endorsements of any of the authors or the AAPM. The full report, containing extensive background on off-label use with several appendices, is available on the AAPM website (

Download full-text


Available from: Bruce Thomadsen
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy of the liver exploits the distinctive features of the liver anatomy to treat liver malignancies with beta radiation and is gaining more wide spread clinical use. This report provides a general overview of microsphere liver brachytherapy and assists the treatment team in creating local treatment practices to provide safe and efficient patient treatment. Suggestions for future improvements are incorporated with the basic rationale for the therapy and currently used procedures. Imaging modalities utilized and their respective quality assurance are discussed. General as well as vendor specific delivery procedures are reviewed. The current dosimetry models are reviewed and suggestions for dosimetry advancement are made. Beta activity standards are reviewed and vendor implementation strategies are discussed. Radioactive material licensing and radiation safety are discussed given the unique requirements of microsphere brachytherapy. A general, team-based quality assurance program is reviewed to provide guidance for the creation of the local procedures. Finally, recommendations are given on how to deliver the current state of the art treatments and directions for future improvements in the therapy.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2011 · Medical Physics
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: New technologies continue to be developed to improve the practice of radiation therapy. As several of these technologies have been implemented clinically, the Therapy Committee and the Quality Assurance and Outcomes Improvement Subcommittee of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine commissioned Task Group 147 to review the current nonradiographic technologies used for localization and tracking in radiotherapy. The specific charge of this task group was to make recommendations about the use of nonradiographic methods of localization, specifically; radiofrequency, infrared, laser, and video based patient localization and monitoring systems. The charge of this task group was to review the current use of these technologies and to write quality assurance guidelines for the use of these technologies in the clinical setting. Recommendations include testing of equipment for initial installation as well as ongoing quality assurance. As the equipment included in this task group continues to evolve, both in the type and sophistication of technology and in level of integration with treatment devices, some of the details of how one would conduct such testing will also continue to evolve. This task group, therefore, is focused on providing recommendations on the use of this equipment rather than on the equipment itself, and should be adaptable to each user's situation in helping develop a comprehensive quality assurance program.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · Medical Physics
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Regulatory bodies including the European Medicines Agency register medications (formulation, route of administration) for specific clinical indications. Once registered, prescription is at clinicians' discretion. Off-label use is beyond the registered use. While off-label prescribing may, at times, be appropriate, efficacy and toxicity data are often lacking.Aim:The aim of this study was to document off-label use policies (including disclosure and consent) in Australian palliative care units and current practices by palliative care clinicians.Design:A national, cross-sectional survey was conducted online following an invitation letter. The survey asked clinicians their most frequent off-label medication/indication dyads and unit policies. Dyads were classified into unregistered, off-label and on-label, and for the latter, whether medications were nationally subsidised.Setting/participants:All Australian palliative medicine Fellows and advanced trainees.Results:Overall, 105 clinicians responded (53% response rate). The majority did not have policies on off-label medications, and documented consent rarely. In all, 236 medication/indication dyads for 36 medications were noted: 45 dyads (19%) were for two unregistered medications, 118 dyads (50%) were for 26 off-label medications and 73 dyads (31%) were for 12 on-label medications.Conclusions:Off-label prescribing with its clinical, legal and ethical implications is common yet poorly recognised by clinicians. A distinction needs to be made between where quality evidence exists but registration has not been updated by the pharmaceutical sponsor and the evidence has not been generated. Further research is required to quantify any iatrogenic harm from off-label prescribing in palliative care.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2012 · Palliative Medicine
Show more