ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2181

Interdisciplinary – Education in radiation oncology

ESTRO 2025

trial unit and the development of an online platform with open access to resources such as interviews from research-active consultants and information on available opportunities. Each of the 3 training sites in Wales will also have dedicated academic representatives to support trainees who have offered to act as mentors. Conclusion: Wales is leading the UK in the implementation of a research-activity competency framework, providing a guide for trainees and the training programme to meet the requirements of the curriculum, equipping the workforce with the skills necessary to engage in a research-driven, evidence-based specialty. With the decline in academic oncologists, it is critical to equip and to inspire the next generation of researchers. 1 This initiative has the potential to reshape the future of oncology research and could be expanded to other regions across the UK, enhancing the national research landscape. References: 1. The Royal College of Radiologists. Clinical Oncology UK workforce census report 2019 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2023 Oct 18]. Available from: https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/clinical-oncology-uk workforce-census-2019-report.pdf 2. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Associate Principal Investigator (PI) Scheme [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Oct 24]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/health-and-care-professionals/career development/associate-principal-investigator-scheme.htm Keywords: Trainee research competencies Digital Poster Contouring quality assurance for UK clinical trials – challenges and opportunities Venkatalakshmi Satram 1 , Jonathan Helbrow 2,3 , Elizabeth Miles 3 , Patricia Diez 3 , Sarah Gwynne 2,3 1 Medical school, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom. 2 Clinical Oncology, South West Wales Cancer Centre, Swansea, United Kingdom. 3 National RTTQA Group, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, London, United Kingdom Purpose/Objective: Contour reviews are a fundamental aspect of clinical trial RTQA processes, endeavouring to reduce variation from protocol and the subsequent, recognised impact on patient outcome (1). They may, however, be time-consuming, resource-intense, subject to challenge if not transparent and subject to inter-reviewer variation (2). Here, we document current practice with regard to contouring review across the UK trials RTQA portfolio, identifying inter-trial differences, examples of best practice, and areas requiring further development. Material/Methods: A survey was developed to evaluate differences in process, review criteria, reporting, reviewer selection and education and training for contour reviews. The questionnaire was circulated in September 2024 to twenty-seven individual trial RTQA contacts and associated chief investigators for UK multi-centre clinical trials involving RT open to recruitment, or having closed within the last six months. Results: Responses were received from 24/27(89%) of trials, with n=42-2000 participants and representing a breadth of anatomical sites. All trials included contouring reviews (pre-accrual benchmarking, during accrual individual case review (ICR) or both) [table 1]. There were 1-8 medical reviewers per trial, majority of which were members of the trial management group, or with track record of reviewing/participation in previous clinical trials. Differences were observed in approaches to training, support and competency assessment for new reviewers, and mechanisms for addressing inter-reviewer variation [table 2]. All trials used a standardised feedback proforma for reviews and 2517