ESTRO 2020 Abstract book

S149 ESTRO 2020

a supportive train the trainer model to empower people with lived experience, as they interact and learn alongside students and academic staff. Conclusion : A clear strategy for engaging patients in RTT education is required to enable a successful working relationship. Patients engage in RTT education for a variety of reasons mostly to share their own experiences, further their knowledge and build confidence and expertise in line with their health status. By engaging patients, we can integrate real life stories and perspectives into our academic content and provide a variety of teaching and learning opportunities for our students. SP-0274 Patient involvement in radiation oncology K. Olling 1 1 Vejle Hospital, Radiotherapy- Dep. of Oncology, Vejle, Denmark Abstract text A patient-centred approach is a key element on the agenda of today’s health care system and patient involvement requires skills and methods to succeed. Studies shows that the majority of patients wish to be involved in making decisions about treatment, care and examinations, yet patients also report that they don’t feel sufficiently involved in decisions in the meeting with health care services. Shared Decision Making (SDM) aims to provide patient-centred care placing the patient´s needs, wishes and preferences at the heart of clinical decision making. It involves both the use of evidence-based information concerning the options, impact and uncertainties and counselling and support in order to make the decision that matches the patient’s values and preferences in the best possible way. This lecture aims to provide knowledge of SDM as a way to involve patients in a mutual decision making process between clinician and patient. The lecture will include examples of SDM research projects in cancer care and radiotherapy, and give insight into the difficult process of real life implementation of SDM in cancer care practice. SP-0275 The power of patient involvement in radiotherapy research J. McCrossin 1 1 Targeting Cancer Campaign RANZCR, Faculty of Radiation Oncology, Sydney, Australia Abstract text The presenter, a seven-year survivor of stage four, HPV- related oropharyngeal cancer treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, will offer criteria for assessing the authenticity of “patient involvement” in research. She will illustrate the practical meaning of “patient involvement” and the benefits of the “power” it unleashes by describing examples of research projects into aspects of mask anxiety involving head and neck cancer patients across multiple sites in Australia. The research projects discussed will include recently completed projects and research that is currently being undertaken. Research topics will include the prevalence and experience of mask anxiety and an assessment of management strategies from the perspective of both clinicians and patients; reducing anxiety and distress through technical alternatives to the immobilisation mask; the development of a universal state anxiety measurement tool; and the provision of visual education to patients prior to treatment in the mask through models, social media, videos and VR (Virtual Reality) interventions. A key focus will be the benefits of equal and respectful partnerships between

multidisciplinary clinicians and patients, plus a mutual commitment to timely and practical benefits to patients and family members arising from research. The true power of partnerships is unleashed when a clinician listens deeply to the stories of patients and then brings their expertise to the development of a research focus and process that has the capacity to deliver an improved clinical result or patient experience or both.

Poster Highlights: Poster highlights 9 CL: Lung

PH-0276 Shared Decision-Making and Decision Support for Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation in SCLC Patients A. Ankolekar 1 , A. Dekker 1 , C. Roumen 1 , D. De Ruysscher 1 , B. Reymen 1 , R. Houben 1 , P. Fick 1 , S. Puts 1 , J. Veugen 1 , A. Berlanga 2 , C. Oberije 3 , R. Fijten 1 1 MAASTRO Clinic, Knowledge Engineering, Maastricht, The Netherlands ; 2 Maastricht University, Valoraization, Maastricht, The Netherlands ; 3 Maastricht University, D- Lab, Maastricht, The Netherlands Purpose or Objective Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) increases the symptom-free time for patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) and metastatic brain cancer. However, it has significant short-term side-effects such as alopecia, fatigue and decrease in cognitive function. Thus, patients face a trade-off between survival time and quality of life. Decision support systems (DSS) can aid clinicians and patients in balancing this trade-off by predicting outcomes for different treatment options in an individual patient. This forms an ideal basis for shared decision-making (SDM), an interactive process in which patients and clinicians collaborate to choose treatments based on the best available evidence and personal preferences. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of using an individualized DSS combined with SDM on the decision-making process for PCI in ES-SCLC patients. Material and Methods Clinicians were given SDM training and a DSS that could predict the overall survival at 6 months after PCI for an individual patient. This AI model was based on sex, TNM- staging, and two serum markers. The DSS was built into the clinic's electronic health record (EHR) system for smoother integration into the workflow. Clinician and patient then chose whether to undergo PCI in an SDM talk. Validated questionnaires were used to assess the perception of the decision-making process according to clinicians and patients (SDM-Q9), patients’ preferred involvement in decision-making (Control Preference Scale) and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Results 22 patient surveys and 29 clinician surveys were completed. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the level of SDM (mean scores SDM-Q9 of 82.3 (SD: 13.9) and 85.6 (SD: 11.2) respectively). The majority of patients (76%) preferred to be involved in decision-making in varying degrees (Fig 1) and 89% of patients reported feeling that they had a choice in their decision. However, nearly 40% faced decisional conflict (Fig 2). Only 36% felt sufficiently informed and 41% were clear about their personal values. 50% felt supported in making a choice and 59% felt that they made a good decision.