ESTRO 2023 - Abstract Book

S853

Digital Posters

ESTRO 2023

1 “Gr. T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Radiotherapy, Iasi, Romania; 2 Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta”, Radiotherapy, Cluj Napoca, Romania; 3 Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuta”, Physics, Cluj Napoca, Romania; 4 Neolife Medical Center, Radiotherapy, Bucharest, Romania Purpose or Objective To report the current status of brachytherapy (BT) units, techniques, and indications in a developing East-European Country. Materials and Methods 15 departments of radiotherapy (public and private) from Romania were included. Each department answered an electronic questionnaire regarding BT. Data reporting was done for 2021. The questionnaire included 23 questions regarding: type of hospital, number of equipment(s), type of equipment, service provided (by insurance company or with payment), number of patients and treatments, type of implants and procedure (endocavitary, interstitial, contact/surface, intraluminal), type of imaging used for planning( 2D X-rays, 3D computed tomography (CT), 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or endorectal ultrasound (US)), number of patients and procedure per type of treated cancer and each of the department’s input on challenges, problems and the future of BT in our country. The data was collected and statistical analyses. Results All 15 departments of radiotherapy completed the questionnaire. Regarding the type of department, there were 46.7% private hospital/clinic, 33.3% Institute of Oncology, and 20% in the county/city public hospital. Most of the clinics have been equipped since 2015. As equipment, there were: 11 Varian (Gammamed IX, Ir192) and 4 Elekta (2 Flexiton Ir192, 2 Selectron Ir192). 60% of treatments were provided by insurance company, 26.7% by private payment, and 13.3% by both. 3656 p were treated with BT and 10634 procedures were done in 2021. Endocavitary BT was available in all departments, interstitial for 40%, contact for 40%, and intraluminal for 13.3%. For the treatment plan imaging, 86.7% were made on CT, 26.7% on X-rays, 13.3% on MRI, and 6.7% on endorectal US. All the departments temporary implant was used. The types of cancer treated with BT were: 100% gynecological cancers, 40% rectal/anal cancer, 33.3% skin cancers, 20% sarcomas, and esophageal cancers, 13.3% prostate and breast cancer, 6.7% ENT and lung cancers. The most important n of p treated by type of cancer per 2021 were: gynecological (1198), skin (53 p), prostate (21), sarcomas (7), rectal (3), and breast (1). The main problems reported by the departments were underfunding of BT services, staff training, and implementation of interstitial BT in the public system. All the departments consider that BT training courses should be organized regularly in our country. Conclusion The current status of BT in our country identify the therapeutic possibilities and recognize the gaps for certain types of cancers. Our data provide an overview of the BT use at the present time in an East-European developing country, which seems to be going in a very good direction in recent years and should be considered for wider implementation in all the country to improve outcomes. 1 Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Clinical Oncology, Head and Neck, London, United Kingdom; 2 Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Chemotherapy Nurse Consultant, London, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective In 2019, NHS England set the ambition to deliver Personalised stratified Follow-up (PFU) to patients following treatment for cancer. A novel PFU programme for patients who have been treated for Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) was implemented in 2021. Suitable patients are discharged by oncologists at their 2 year follow-up review onto a PFU pathway. Patients are invited to a nurse-led PFU clinic where they receive personalised assessment and education. We wished to evaluate quality of life (QOL) and health needs of patients in PFU and to understand patient experience of the PFU clinic. Materials and Methods Institutional approval was obtained for the implementation of the PFU programme. 25 patients were identified between May and September 2022 using pre-agreed criteria and consented to transfer to a PFU pathway. Prior to the PFU clinic, patients were invited to complete a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Head and Neck (EORTC QLQ HN43) Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) and a Holistic Needs Assessment (HNA) questionnaire. In the PROM data patients reported concerns using a 4 point Likert scale to indicate impact on QOL. Scores were then converted to a 0-100 scale, with scores above 60 identified as of Significant Concern (SC). HNA data was collected on the electronic platform hosted by Macmillan. Patients scored concerns using the ‘Distress Scale’ of 0-10. PROM and HNA data were reviewed with patients with co-development of a Personalised Care Plan and Treatment Summary. Patients were offered a post-clinic survey 1 week later. Results 80% (n=19) of PFU patients returned PROM data. 5 patients identified 1 SC and 1 identified 2 SCs. All SC concerns raised were identified as common long term side effects of the treatment. 92% (n=23) patients returned HNA data. 30% (n=7) of patients identified concerns that impacted QOL. No patients identified a concern that scored greater than 6. The average concern score was 4.3. The most common concern raised throughout PROMS and HNA data was a ‘Dry Mouth.’ PO-1067 Personalised FollowUp for patients with head and neck cancer: quality of life and patient experience L. Dean 1 , D.T. Guererro-Urbano 1 , D.C. Oakley 2 , D.M. Lei 1