ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2158

Interdisciplinary – Education in radiation oncology

ESTRO 2025

Keywords: Dose Limits, RT Planning, Change Management

References: [1] Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change . Boston: Harvard Business School Press. [2] Timmermann, R. „A Story of Hypofractionation and the Table on the Wall“. RedJournal , 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.09.027. [3] Bisello, S., et al. „Dose–Volume Constraints fOr oRganS At Risk In Radiotherapy (CORSAIR): An “All-in-One” Multicenter–Multidisciplinary Practical Summary“. Current Oncology , 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29100552.

996

Digital Poster What Are the Knowledge and Practices on Geriatric Oncology Among Portuguese Radiation Oncologists? - Survey Findings Edna Darlene Rodrigues 1 , Paulo Almeida 2 , Escarlata López 3 , Laetitia Teixeira 1 1 ICBAS/CINTESIS, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Porto, Portugal. 2 Internal Medicine Department, Unidade Local de São João, Porto, Portugal. 3 Radiation Oncology, Genesis Care Malaga, Malaga, Spain Purpose/Objective: Cancer is a major health issue in Portugal, with older adults making up nearly half of new cases and relying on radiation therapy (RT) as a key part of their treatment. In 2021, there were 172 consultants and 43 residents registered in radiation oncology (RO) in Portugal. This study aims to emphasize the importance of geriatric oncology education in RO. Results: In this analysis, 52 respondents were included, comprising 13 residents (25%) and 39 consultants (75%) in RO. Of the total respondents, 31 (56.6%) were female, and 27 (51.9%) worked at a university hospital. Consultant expertise covered various cancer subtypes: genitourinary (n=15, 28.8%), breast (n=15, 28.8%), gastrointestinal (n=13, 25%), head and neck (n=13, 25%), lung (n=11, 21.2%), central nervous system (n=7, 13.5%), haematology (n=9, 17.3%), gynaecology (n=6, 11.5%), and skin/sarcomas (n=6, 11.5%). Seven respondents (13.5%) indicated the presence of a designated professional for geriatric oncology within their respective hospitals. However, only 6 participants (11.5%) affirmed the availability of staff resources for the implementation of a comprehensive geriatric assessment. RO were asked to specify the age threshold they considered to define an older cancer patient. Their responses were as follows: 60 years (3.8%, n=2), 65 years (13.5%, n=7), 68 years (1.9%, n=1), 70 years (55.8%, n=29), 75 years (19.2%, n=10), and 80 years (3.8%, n=2). Twenty-nine participants (55.8%) reported that age was considered either most of the time or always. Regarding frailty screening, it was performed by 15 participants (28.8%), while 4 participants (7.7%) stated that frailty was assessed during CGA in another department. Of those implementing screening tools, 9 (17.3%) utilized the G8 tool, and 2 respondents (3.8%) employed the Triage Risk Screening Tool - TRST tool. Forty-six respondents (88.5%) acknowledged an observed increase in the number of older cancer patients attending RO departments. Furthermore, 51 participants (98.1%) expressed the need for enhanced training in geriatric oncology. The preferred methods for training included case studies discussions for 27 (51.9%), workshops for 23 (44.2%), constitution of cancer type-specific interest groups for 26 (50%), and easy access to international geriatric oncology guidelines for 34 respondents (65.4%). Material/Methods: A pretested 22-item online survey on RO’ geriatric oncology knowledge was disseminated.