ESTRO 2021 Abstract Book

S1187

ESTRO 2021

Conclusion This review confirms that PPR is an important treatment option to achieve symptoms relieve in this setting, with a favorable side effect profile.

PO-1446 Teachh model: update of our experience in its management in hospitalized palliative patients C. Escuin 1 , M. Cerrolaza 1 , V. Navarro 1 , A. Lanuza 1 , C. García 1 , A. Campos 1 , S. Flamarique 1 , J.M. Ponce 1 , R. Ibañez 1 1 University Hospital Miguel Servet, Radiation oncology, Zaragoza, Spain Purpose or Objective Radiation therapy is an effective treatment in symptomatic patients (metastatic bone pain, hemorrhage or cerebral edema). A remarkable percentage of patients who arrive at a radiation oncology service and are planned do not receive treatment due to a worsening of their general condition or death. It is important to estimate life expectancy in order to make appropriate decisions regarding radiotherapy treatment in these patients. After literature review, we adopted the TEACHH model as a support tool for decision-making in palliative radiotherapy. The objective of this study is to carry out a prognostic assessment scale that helps the physician decide on the importance of the indication for palliative radiotherapy and thus reduce the rate of planned patients who do The TEACHH model divides patients into three groups according to life expectancy (1.7, 5 and 19.9 months) based on the score obtained according to the clinical characteristics of the patient (cancer type, ECOG, age, plus of two lines of chemotherapy treatment, previous hospitalizations and the presence of liver metastases). We decided to use the TEACHH model in all hospitalized patients with a priori indication for palliative radiotherapy. 410 candidate patients were selected for palliative radiotherapy referred from the floor hospitalization of our center between May 2017 and December 2020. Results Treatment with radiotherapy for metastatic bone pain was indicated in 41.87% of the patients, with haemostatic intention in the 9.85%, brain metastases in 24.14% and finally, for spinal cord compression in 17.24% of patients. The remaining 6.9% were treated for other causes. Of the total number of patients evaluated, 25.6% were in the 1.7-month life expectancy group; 70.7% in 5 months and 3.7% in 19.9 months. The use of the model allowed us to reject treatment in 140 (34.1%) patients (56 in the 1.7-month group, 113 in 5 months, and 2 in 19.9 months). 34 (8.29%) of the patients were planned and finally treatment was not administered due to worsening of the general condition and near death. Conclusion TEACHH prognostic scale allows us to indicate a palliative treatment of form adjusted to each patients and taking into account their life expectancy. not receive treatment. Materials and Methods PO-1447 Outcome of chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone in elderly patients with esophageal cancer P. Braam 1 , T. van der Werff 2 , H. Rütten 1 , J. Dortmans 3 , H. Verheul 4 1 Radboud University Medical Center, Radiation Oncology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; 2 Radboud University Medical Center, Medical Oncology, Nijmeen, The Netherlands; 3 Medisch Spectrum Twente, Radiation Oncology, Enschede, The Netherlands; 4 Radboud University Medical Center, Medical Oncology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Purpose or Objective The outcome of patients with esophageal cancer is generally poor. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcome of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and high dose radiotherapy (RT) alone in patients with localized esophageal cancer in a real life situation and focused on the elderly population. Materials and Methods We performed a single center retrospective analysis of patients with esophageal cancer treated with CRT or RT between 2000 and 2019. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and completion of intended therapy. Results In total 233 patients (CRT, n=126; RT, n=107) were identified for evaluation, 121 of these patients were above 70 years. CRT consisted of carboplatin/paclitaxel (CP) or cisplatin/5FU (CF) concurrent with external beam radiotherapy (mainly 28x18Gy). RT consisted of external beam radiotherapy with or without intraluminal brachytherapy. We only included patients with a total EQD2 of>50Gy. 32.5% (41/126) of patients treated with CRT and 28% (30/107) patients treated with RT did not complete the intended therapy. For patients above 70 years, these outcomes were respectively 35.7% (15/42) CRT and 24.1% (19/79) RT. The OS was in favor of the CRT group compared to the RT group (CRT median 22 months (19.6-24.2), 3-year OS 29.0% vs. RT median 13 months (9.3-16.5), 3-year OS 10.3% RT). Also the PFS was in favor of the CRT group (CRT median 13 months (10.7-15.2), 3-year PFS 19.9%)compared to the RT group (RT median 10 months (6.7-13.1), 3-year PFS 5.6%; p=0.002). In the 121 patients older than 70 years, the OS and the PFS remained in favor of CRT with a median OS for CRT of 41 months compared to 12 months with RT alone(table 1). The performance status was significantly different between elderly patients receiving CRT or RT alone (p=0.001). There was no clear difference in tumor stage between the two groups (p=0.062). Digital Poster: Elderly