ESTRO 2023 - Abstract Book

S49

Saturday 13 May

ESTRO 2023

Participants competed a post-workshop questionnaire which included combination of qualitative and quantitative questions via yes/no responses, Likert scale, and 1 to 10 scale. We describe curriculum deployment, questions raised by participants, feedback on clinical cases provided by teachers, and workshop evaluation by participants. Results 21 teams from 8 countries (Europe, Asia, Latin America) participated in two online workshops. The total number of participants was 49: 23 RO/CO (47%), 22 MP (45%), and 4 RTT (8%). The clinical cases represented LACC with FIGO stages from IB3 to IVA. We summarized the participant queries according to four workshop topics (Table 1). During both, Workshop1 (W1) and Workshop 2 (W2) the following areas of improvement were identified by the faculty: familiarity with the GEC ESTRO and ICRU 89 recommendations for contouring and planning based on clinical drawings and MRI sequencing choice; appropriate selection of the applicator, including length, angle and diameter; experience in using the interstitial needles. Other shortages identified among the participants were: lack of verification of applicator digitization in 3D view after slice-by-slice reconstruction; wrong identification of applicator surface and consequential misplacement of the 3D applicator model due of vaginal packing; challenges with the dose optimization. All these issues were addressed during the workshop. The participants rated both workshops with overall scores 8,3 for W1 and 8,5 for W2. In 82% participants the training course fully met expectations and in 18% partly for W1. For W2 76% had their expectations met completely and 24% partly. Participants also provided suggestions to improve the workshop content and organization, and proposed topics for future workshops: present clinical cases with complications and discuss how to handle them; present a challenging clinical case by the faculty; send one clinical case to all participants before the workshop and compare contouring and treatment planning results.

Conclusion We successfully implemented the online workshops for BT. We encourage teams to organize similar trainings with discussion of clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. PD-0086 Professional quality of life of Tunisian in training resident in oncology radiotherapy N. Fourati 1 , M. Frikha 1 , S. Zouari 1 , O. Nouri 1 , W. Siala 1 , W. Mnejja 1 , J. Daoud 1 1 Habib Bourguiba Hospital Faculty of Medicine University of Sfax, Radiotherapy Department, Sfax, Tunisia Purpose or Objective In-training residents are confronted with a daily burden: patients care, participation in training courses, and scientific studies elaboration. In oncology, the emotional burden had an additional impact. These charges can affect the residents’ quality of life and consequently the quality of training and patients’ care. The objective of this study was to evaluate the professional quality of life of in-training Tunisian residents in oncology radiotherapy. Materials and Methods The EORTC questionnaire of Professional Quality Of Life Screening V.5 (PROQOL) was sent online to all Tunisian residents in oncology radiotherapy centers (n=40). Participants were asked to answer anonymously. This questionnaire includes 3 main items: assessment of compassion satisfaction (10 questions), professional syndrome exhaustion or burnout (10 questions), and secondary traumatic stress (10 questions). Each question has attributed a score between 1 (never) to 5 (very often). For each Item a score of ≤ 22 was considered as low, between [23-41] as a medium, and high ( ≥ 42). Results In total, twenty-eight (70%) training residents in radiation oncology answered the questionnaire. The median age was 28 years [26-32] with a female predominance (23 women: 82%). Most participants were single (75%). For the assessment of compassion satisfaction, the median score was 33.5 [21-43]. Twenty-six (92.9%) participants had a medium score and only 1 participant (3.6%) expressed high satisfaction. For burnout syndrome, the median score was 30 [19-37] with 27 (96.4%) participants with a medium score. For secondary traumatic stress, the median score was 29 [19-37] mostly considered a medium score: (26 participants; 92.9%). None of the participants had a high score of burnout or traumatic stress syndrome. Conclusion