ESTRO 2024 - Abstract Book

S5822

RTT - Education, training, advanced practice and role developments

ESTRO 2024

Comparing the Hungarian RTT’s practice in the head and neck region with the ESTRO Guideline

Márton Vékás 1 , Gábor Stelczer 1,2 , Levente Zsolt Jánváry 1 , Tibor Major 1,3 , Zoltán Takácsi-Nagy 1,3

1 National Institute of Oncology, Center of Radiotherapy, Budapest, Hungary. 2 Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Institute of Nuclear Techniques, Budapest, Hungary. 3 Semmelweis University, Department of Oncology, Budapest, Hungary

Purpose/Objective:

The ESTRO ACROP guidelines for positioning, immobilisation and position verification of head and neck cancer patients for radiation therapists (RTT) 1 aim to assist the RTTs in the above-mentioned topics of the head and neck region. The survey of the guideline contains 40 questions, based on literature review with 5 sections including demographics, patient positioning, immobilisation devices, CT or simulation practice, position and verification, and quality assurance. All European countries were invited to complete the survey; however, Hungary did not participate in it. The goal of this research was to collect data for this survey from the Hungarian radiotherapy departments and to compare those with the results of the ESTRO guideline.

Material/Methods:

An invitation email was sent to the chief RTT of 13 Hungarian radiotherapy departments. The e-mail provided a link to an anonym survey with explanations. A committee has been established for the evaluation of the answers. The result of the survey was compared to the survey of the ESTRO ACROP guideline, question by question.

Results:

10 of 13 Hungarian centres filled out the survey. The average number of annual cases and the existence of a written protocol are close to the average of the ESTRO survey. However, the written protocols do not deal with tumours of different localizations in details. The decision-making role of domestic RTTs in immobilisation is smaller compared to the ESTRO guideline’s results. Retraction of the shoulders is not done in 20% of cases in our country. Also, 20% of the Hungarian RT departments do not index the immobilisation systems. CBCT is the dominant imaging method, 90% of the Hungarian departments use it. The action level of correction protocol is 0 mm in 40% of the departments. Imaging in the first four fractions, followed by weekly once occurs most often in our country, however it is relatively rare in the centres surveyed by ESTRO.

Conclusion:

The Hungarian RTT practice in positioning, immobilisation and position verification of the head and neck cancer patients differs from the results of the ESTRO ACROP guideline in several points. Some of these differences might occur because the guideline was published in 2016. Shoulder retraction and indexing the immobilisation systems should be considered in the Hungarian departments where they are not used. Continuous learning, developing our skills and keeping up critical thinking is important for safe and high-quality treatments, so a Hungarian translation of the guideline will be presented for our radiation oncology departments.