Abstract Book

S50

ESTRO 37

compared to 32.5 Gy (HR=0.347, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.91; P=0.03) and a significant reduced risk of relapse with low versus high risk (HR=0.07, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.51; P=0.03), adjusting for confounders and other prognostic factors. At two years 89% were free of GU grade >1 late toxicity and 98% free of GI grade >1 late toxicity as shown in figure 2 and Figure 3. Conclusion The toxicity of ultra-hypofractionated IG-IMRT in a large clinical cohort of PCa pts was tolerable and confirmed that this treatment is safe and offers excellent tumor control. Moreover the hypofractionated RT allows to deliver the whole RT over 10 days with a sensible impact in patients’ QoL and potential overall health system and social benefits. OC-0094 Cancer Clinical Trials - survey evaluating patient participation and attitude in an Oncology Center K.A. Kessel 1,2 , C. Kessel 1,3 , M.M.E. Vogel 1 , H. Bier 4 , T. Biedermann 5 , H. Friess 6 , P. Herschbach 7 , R. Von Eisenhart-Rothe 8 , B. Meyer 9 , M. Kiechle 10 , U. Keller 11 , C. Peschel 11 , R. Schmid 12 , M. Schwaiger 13 , S.E. Combs 1,2,3 1 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Radiation Oncology, Munich, Germany 2 Institute for Innovative Radiotherapy iRT, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany 3 Onkologisches Zentrum im RHCCC am Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany 4 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Munich, Germany 5 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Dermatology and Allergy Biederstein, Munich, Germany 6 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Surgery, Munich, Germany 7 Roman Herzog Comprehensive Cancer Center RHCCC, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Munich, Germany 8 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Munich, Germany 9 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Neurosurgery, Munich, Germany 10 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Munich, Germany 11 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, 3rd Department of Internal Medicine Hematology and Oncology, Munich, Germany 12 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Gastroenterology, Munich, Germany 13 Klinikum rechts der Isar Technical University Munich, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Munich, Germany Purpose or Objective Prospective clinical trials are essential to translate new therapy concepts or rather any scientific development into medical routine. Besides a sophisticated trial protocol, the implementation depends on patient recruitment and participation. Therefore, our evaluation analyses the patient participation and attitude towards clinical trials. Material and Methods We designed a questionnaire with 15 questions, which was given to all oncological patients treated within three months. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The questionnaire mainly inquired patients’ participation in clinical trials, their attitude regarding risks and benefits, and their resource of information in this context (ethics vote 167/17s). Results 912 patients (50.5% male, 49.5% female) participated in the survey. Median age was 61 years (18 - 91 years). Patient received the following therapies: 48.7% surgery,

22.8% radiotherapy, and 43.8% systemic therapy. 17.7% (n=133) were participating in a clinical trial. Reasons for participation were: personal contribution to cancer research (72.2%), trial treatment is more intensive (33.8%) or more innovative (25.6%), treatment by disease specialists (21.1%), newest treatment method (15.0%), or previous positive experience with clinical trials (6.0%). Out of the patients not participating in a trial, 94 (15.2%) were offered to participate and refused due to extensive travel time to the center (21.3%), no therapeutic advantage (20.2%), too time-consuming (17.0%), too many additional appointments (7.5%), higher risk (10.6%), participating in another trial (4.3%), insufficient information by the physician or bad experience in the past (both 3.2%). Out of the patients not offered to participate in a trial (n=504), 50.2% would participate due to: personal contribution to cancer research (66.4%), trial treatment is more intensive (49.8%) or more innovative (53.4%), treatment by disease specialists (39.9%), newest treatment method (41.1%), or previous positive experience with clinical trials (7.5%). Of all, 23.6% informed themselves about clinical trials via internet (64.5%), family physician/specialist (59.0%), or in a medical magazine (10.2%). Only 8.3% used the clinic homepage as a source of information, of those 83.1% were satisfied with its content. We further asked how patients want to be informed about possible clinical trials for their disease. Most (42.7%) preferred an individual medical consultation with their physician, 16.9% would prefer information flyers/brochures, 14.2% special patient events, 13.9% information on the clinic homepage, and 3.3% through a clinic app. Conclusion Clearly, patients are willing to participate in clinical trials. Better information strategies need to be implemented and physicians need to be aware of running trials within their department and improve recruitment by counseling patients effectively. Trial concepts should keep in mind patients’ needs including adequate number of appointments, positive risk-benefit profiles and information material. OC0095 Use of a patient reported outcome as a potential radiobiological endpoint in oropharyngeal cancer M. Hickman 1 , S. Kelly 1 , C. Fong 2 , P. Nightingale 1 , P. Sanghera 2 , H. Mehanna 3 , A. Hartley 2 1 University Hospital Birmingham, Radiotherapy, Birmingham, United Kingdom 2 Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Hall-Edwards Radiotherapy Research Group, Birmingham, United Kingdom 3 University of Birmingham, InHanse, Birmingham, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective Historically mucositis has been scored using clinician scoring of mucosal appearances (e.g. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version (v) 3) or patient symptoms (CTCAEv4). More recently the patient reported outcome version of CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) has been developed. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between radiobiological parameters and the duration of mucosal outcomes measured using CTCAE v3, v4 and PRO-CTCAE. Material and Methods The mucosal reactions of consecutive patients undergoing radical intensity modulated radiotherapy were scored weekly by clinicians and patients. Reactions continued to be scored during post treatment visits until grade 3 reaction had subsided (v3 and v4) or patients reported that the severity of their throat or mouth sores in the last week had decreased from severe to moderate (PRO). The relationship between the volume of high dose CTV, prescription dose converted to biologically effective