ESTRO 2021 Abstract Book

S1203

ESTRO 2021

ulcer, GG stenosis, liver abscess) in 2.83% of all cases. This corresponds to a cumulative toxicity of 4.58%, with a mortality rate of 0%. At the same time, the local control rate (LCR) after 12 months was 89%. The retrospective analyzes of the pooled data from the Stereotaxic Working Group (Klement 2019, BMC Cancer + Andraschke 2018, BMC Cancer), which will not be discussed further here, also show comparatively low morbidity data and local 12-month control rates of approx. 90%, if a sufficiently high dose was applied. Conclusion Although oncological liver surgery is currently the therapeutic gold standard, this comparison shows impressively that, with regard to morbidity and mortality data, local ablative RT should have an important role within the interdisciplinary tumor boards, especially since increasing evidence is being generated with regard to high local control rates. Careful patient selection and prospective studies are the key to optimized treatment. Which radio-ablative procedure is used depends primarily on the institutional possibilities and experiences. A comparative prospective study is also necessary for a differentiated selection. PO-1466 Patients’ satisfaction during radiotherapy treatment N. Fourati 1 , R. Trigui 1 , F. Dhouib 1 , L. Farhat 1 , W. Siala 1 , W. Mnejja 1 , J. Daoud 1 1 Faculty of medecine University of Sfax, Radiotherapy Department CHU Habib Bourguiba Sfax Tunisia, Sfax, Tunisia Materials and Methods European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer care satisfaction survey (EORTC PATSAT-C33) was distributed to patients during their radiotherapy course. This satisfactory evaluationtool included 33 questions divided into 4 items: satisfaction with the radiation oncologists (10 questions), with the radiation therapists (7 questions), with the whole care organization in the radiotherapy center (15 questions) and one question for overall satisfaction. A 5-scale score was assigned to each question according to the level of satisfaction: 1 (no satisfaction)-5 (high satisfaction). A response of 6 (not applicable) was excluded from the scoring. A total of 80 patients returned the survey. The median age of participants was 46.5 years [27-76] with a sex ratio of 1. The majority of participants were treated for breast cancer (30 patients; 37.5%), nasopharyngeal cancer (15 patients; 18.75%) and prostate cancer (13 patients; 18%). Results The mean overall satisfaction score was 4.74 [4-5]. Participants were globally satisfied with the relationship with radiation oncologists and radiation therapists (mean score 4.53 [4.04-4.92] and 4.37 [3.1-4.94] respectively). Sixty patients (75%) reported that they were not asked for their opinion on the choice of treatment. Otherwise, satisfaction with the organization of care at the center was less important (mean score 3.85 [2.6-4.91]). Indeed, satisfaction was low for the following items: information provided on all available support services (social, psychological, physiotherapy, dietician services, support group) (mean score 2.6 [1- 5]), the access to the radiotherapy center (parking, means of transportation...) (mean score 2.94 [1-5]) and information provided on means tha tcould improve health or prevent illness (mean score 3.02 [1-5]). Conclusion Regular assessment of radiation oncologists' daily practice is essential to ensure a high quality of care. In addition to the scientific aspect, reporting patients’ satisfaction and their quality-of-care scores is an emerging recommendation in health care quality assurance process. The results of the survey conducted in our center allowed us to identify the weak points requiring a corrective intervention during the CREX meetings. A new survey would be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures after their implementation. PO-1467 Prophylactic use of dexamethasone during cerebral irradiation: Survey in Germany A. Glowka 1 , D. Vordermark 1 , H. Mesrogli 1 , D. Medenwald 1 1 Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Radiation Oncology, Halle, Germany Purpose or Objective Background: Dexamethasone is often used prophylactically during cerebral irradiation to prevent intracranial pressure symptoms, although it has side effects and is not approved for prophylactic treatment in Germany. Objective: The aim is to asses the current state of prophylactic use of dexamethasone during cerebral irradiation and to describe the commonly used regimens in Germany Materials and Methods We conducted a survey on the prophylactic administration of dexamethasone during cerebral irradiation among the members of the German Society of Radiation Oncology - DEGRO. A total of 220 questionnaires were returned. We recorded the administration of dexamethasone on the basis of three typical cases of clinical practice (whole-brain irradiation, whole-brain irradiation with simultaneously integrated boost and stereotactic irradiation of one to three cerebral metastases). In all cases, no neurologic symptoms such as headache, paresis, organic psychosyndrome, seizures, cranial nerve paresis, or signs of intracranial pressure were present at the start of radiotherapy. No dexamethasone has been given for at least two weeks prior to the start of radiotherapy and there is no anticonvulsive therapy. Results The majority of respondents were from outpatient settings (46.82%) followed by university (28.64%) and non- university hospitals (23.64%) most with professional experience of more than 10 years (68.04%). During whole-brain irradiation with 3 Gy to 30 Gy almost twenty percent of German radiation oncologists would administer oral dexamethasone prophylactically. Nearly half (46.73%) would use dexamethasone prophylactically in a treatment regimen with simultaneous integrated boost, in most cases at a singular daily oral dose of 4mg. Purpose or Objective The aim of our study was to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction during conformational radiotherapy treatment.