ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S109 ESTRO 2024 2. Kovalchuk N, Simiele E, Skinner L, et al. The Stanford VMAT Total Body Irradiation Technique. Pract Radiat Oncol. 2022 May-Jun;12(3):245-258. 3. Schultheiss TE, Wong J, Liu A, et al. Image-guided total marrow and total lymphatic irradiation using helical tomotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67(4):1259-1267. 4. Quast U. Total body irradiation-Review of treatment techniques in Europe. Radiat Oncol. 1987;9: 91–106. 5. Fog LS, Wirth A., MacManus M. Total body irradiation in Australia and New Zealand: Results of a practice survey. Phys Eng Sci Med. 2020;43: 825–835. 6. Studinski RCN., Fraser DJ, Samant RS, et al. Current practice in total-body irradiation: Results of a Canada-wide survey. Curr Oncol. 2017;24: 181. 7. Ishibashi N, Soejima T, Kawaguchi H. National survey of myeloablative total body irradiation prior to hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Japan: Survey of the Japanese Radiation Oncology Study Group (JROSG) J Radiat Res. 2018;59: 477–483. 8. Das IJ, Galavis P, Mistry N, et al. Total body irradiation techniques: Patterns of care with advanced technology. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2018;102: e489. 9. Koken PhW, Murrer LHP. Total Body Irradiation and Total Skin Irradiation techniques in Belgium and the Netherlands: current clinical practice. Adv. Radiat. Oncol. 2021; 6(4): 100644 10. Murrer LHP, Van der Hulst P, Jansen W, et al. Code of practice and recommendations for total body irradiation and total skin irradiation. Report 34 of the Netherlands Commission on Radiation Dosimetry. 2021. Invited Speaker

3503

State of the PROMs

Sara Faithfull

Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Discipline of Radiation therapy, Dublin, Ireland. University of Surrey, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Guildford, United Kingdom

Abstract:

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are powerful tools that provide data from the patient perspective of; symptoms, physical function, and emotional health, that are recognised as an important outcome in clinical trials, often as secondary to disease free survival. PROMs are also important in reviewing cancer treatment efficacy [1], as survival differences between therapies are less distinct, populations more diverse, and the need to optimise cancer treatment is growing. Systematic monitoring of late effects from radiotherapy is important in determining normal tissue effects, measuring dose response as well as the impact of multimodality therapy on the individual with cancer. Despite ambitions for patient reported outcomes too be used more widely in radiotherapy practice, they are not routinely used beyond clinical trials. In this talk I explore the benefits of using PROs in cohort and large-scale population studies to look beyond treatment efficacy and progression free survival. PROMs used routinely can be a more accurate way to measure the impact of cancer treatment. Comparison of patient and physician rated toxicity scores show that observer rated toxicity underrepresents patients own appraisal of symptoms with these differences leading to under reporting of adverse effects. PROMS collected nationally as across healthcare settings can also be used to obtain a broad perspective of cancer patient treatment outcomes at a single point in time, describing the general health and needs for support for those living with and beyond cancer. These can provide helpful comparisons as a form of benchmarking cancer services.

Population and cohort studies, provide large scale information on cancer treatment effects with the difference that they are collected over time and are valuable in identifying patterns in comorbidities, the impact on long term quality