ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S31

Invited Speaker

ESTRO 2024

1. Increased imaging doses (specially relevant for young adults) 2. Resources intensiveness 3. Lack of clear guidance on the tolerance limits and action plans linked to the treatment plan robustness 4. Data management and analysis 5. Dose to surrounding normal tissues 6. Lack of image decision support algorithms to chose the most appropriate type of imaging and frequency. 7. Not enough investment for image improvement with reduced dose (hardware and software)

8. Lack of training in image optimisation procerures for MPE working in Radiotherapy 9. Lack of recording of imaging doses due to IGRT practices in the medical record 10. Lack of vendors supporting tools for NAL approaches

Addressing these challenges involves ongoing research, technological advancements, and a commitment to refining protocols and workflows to maximize the benefits of IGRT while minimizing associated risks and inefficiencies. In a parallel tale, much like the girl saving fishes from drowning, our efforts in the judicious use of IGRT aim to rescue the inherent advantages of this technology from the potential deluge of overuse.

3325

Developing a patient outcome set for evaluating acute toxicity within radiotherapy

Pia Krause Møller

Odense University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Odense, Denmark. University of Southern Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, Odense, Denmark

Abstract:

Introduction:

In the radiotherapy clinic, accurate evaluation of patient outcomes, especially acute toxicity, is essential for timely patient-centred care. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to detect changes in adverse events can inform healthcare professionals about the optimal timings and personalization of supportive care interventions. Despite the availability of numerous cancer- or site-specific PROMs, their length or lack of specificity may limit the clinical utility. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines advocate for identifying outcomes that resonate with the specific patient population over the selection of a particular instrument. However, selecting meaningful outcomes is a systematic and time-consuming process. Furthermore, incorporating patient insights into the design and implementation is recommended to enhance the therapeutic benefits of using PROMs. In several clinical studies within oncology, systematic item selections have been conducted to identify tumour- and treatment-specific outcomes and select items from validated item libraries for patient self-reporting. In our institution, we aimed to use elements from these PRO item selections in a clinical study and make modifications in the subsequent clinical implementation process in the radiotherapy department. A systematic selection of outcomes for patient reporting was conducted for a study with prostate cancer radiotherapy. Recognizing “we only get what we ask for”, we identified outcomes with the dual aim of capturing acute toxicity in targeted irradiated areas and ensuring relevance to patient experiences. We conducted chart audits, literature Methodology: