ESTRO 2020 Abstract book

S731 ESTRO 2020

delivery of clinically relevant, valid, and reliable conclusions from clinical trials. PO-1295 RAMSI: patients satisfaction by Smile In Totem in a mono-institutional experience in radiotherapy A. D'Aviero 1 , G. Chiloiro 2 , L. Dinapoli 3 , E. Zane 4 , A. Tenore 3 , M. Balducci 2 , M.A. Gambacorta 2 , G.C. Mattiucci 2 , P. Malavasi 4 , V. Valentini 2 1 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini- Radioterapia Oncologica e Ematologia, Rome, Italy ; 2 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS - Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini- Radioterapia Oncologica e Ematologia, Rome, Italy ; 3 Fondazione Policlinico Universitario “A. Gemelli” IRCCS, Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini- Radioterapia Oncologica e Ematologia, Rome, Italy ; 4 Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ASA - Alta Scuola per l'Ambiente, Brescia, Italy Purpose or Objective The measures of patients experience and satisfaction represent a topic in Europe as health care quality indicator. The evaluation of the person-patient’s experience may contribute to the monitoring of quality and safety of services as well as benchmarking hospital performance and monitor effectiveness of interventions. Furthermore, patient’s satisfaction may influence the perception of quality of care and impact on the treatment response. The aim of this experience was to collect patients experience during radiotherapy treatment and to evaluate the feasibility and the impact of Smile IN technology in the radiation oncology department. Material and Methods In our radiation oncology department from October 2017 physical Smile IN Terminals were installed in different area of the ward related to the course of care for patients. Data collection was performed with HappyOrNot technology through four different faces and assessment points ("very positive", "positive", "negative" and "very negative"). The SI Terminals evaluated the offered reception, punctuality, professionalism and comfort. The system generated weekly and monthly report with the time slots, the percentages of satisfaction of the service, trends according to time slots, days and with reference to each question, providing both a fragmented and a global data. Results Proposed questions were “Did you feel welcomed as a person today?" for reception; "Has your appointment been adhered to?”, "Was the visiting hours respected?”, “Was your in-therapy visiting hours respected?” and “Has the treatment schedule been adhered to?” for punctuality; "Have they been competent with you today?" for professionalism and “Are the environments comfortable?" for comfort. Among all investigated areas an overall total of 42755 voting were registered as reported in Table 1.

organizations, EORTC, IROC, QUARTET, RTTQA, TROG, and IAEA. The objective was to unify OAR contouring guidance across the RTQA Groups, by compiling a single reference list of OAR in line with AAPM TG 263 standardised nomenclature and ASTRO normal tissue contouring consensus, with peer-reviewed contouring guidance for integration into future clinical trial protocols. The work consisted of 3 stages: (1)Clinical trial documentation review and identification of structures of interest (2)Review of existing contouring guidance and survey of proposed OAR contouring guidance (3)Analysis of survey feedback with recommendations for contouring guidance with OAR nomenclature. Results 157 clinical trials recruiting or in setup were examined. 206 structures were identified across the trial documentation. Duplicates, composite, non-anatomical, non-specific structures, and structures with more specific alternative nomenclature were excluded; leaving 112 structures of interest. Of these, 47 (42.0%) were consistent with the ASTRO defined structures, which are either recommended or considered for contouring in site- specific clinical trials. Of the 32 ASTRO structures recommended for contouring 30 (93.8%) were in use by 2 or more RTQA Groups; 17 structures (53.1%) were in use by all RTQA Groups (figure).

47 clinical trial investigators (41 radiation oncologists, 6 radiation therapy technologists) from 38 institutions across 15 countries responded to the survey. The mean number of responses per OAR was 16.6 (IQR 13–21). 6 OAR descriptions were accepted with no amendments, 46 required minor amendments, 5 major amendments, 14 were newly created as a result of feedback, and 41 were excluded as a result of feedback. The GHG OAR Working Group adopted AAPM TG 263 nomenclature for this work. The existing nomenclature choices did not fulfill requirements in 8 instances; new nomenclature was established to align with clinical trial contoured OAR (table).

The final GHG consensus recommendations include 71 OARs with associated nomenclature and optimal descriptions. Conclusion This report from an international collaborative network of RTQA Groups provides consensus recommendations on OAR descriptions and associated nomenclature for use in clinical trials. A more uniform dataset will support the