ESTRO 2025 - Abstract Book

S2236

Interdisciplinary – Global health

ESTRO 2025

References: 1.Henke LE, Green OL, Schiff J, Rodriguez VL, Mutic S, Michalski J, Perkins SM. First Reported Case of Pediatric Radiation Treatment With Magnetic Resonance Image Guided Radiation Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2019 Jan 31;4(2):233-236. doi: 0.1016/j.adro.2019.01.008. PMID: 31011667; PMCID: PMC6460231 2. Egriboyun S, Ugurluer G, Corapcioglu FV, Celik L, Gungor G, Atalar B, Ozyar E. Magnetic resonance image-guided stereotactic body radiation therapy for liver rhabdoid tumor in infancy: A case report. J Med Imaging Radiat Sci. 2021 Jun;52(2):305-311. doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2021.02.006. Epub 2021 Mar 16. PMID: 33741278.

2093

Digital Poster Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Proton Therapy: Travel Impact and Patient Perspectives Federico Mastroleo 1,2 , Giulia Marvaso 1,2 , Gaia Piperno 1 , Annamaria Ferrari 1 , Luca Bergamaschi 1 , Giovanni Carlo Mazzola 1 , Samantha Dicuonzo 1 , Stefania Volpe 1,2 , Ekaterina Milovanova 1,2 , Roberto Orecchia 3 , Daniela Alterio 1 , Barbara Alicja Jereczek-Fossa 1,2 1 Division of Radiation Oncology, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 2 Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 3 Scientific Directorate, IEO European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy Purpose/Objective: Proton therapy is a cutting-edge cancer treatment modality that often necessitates patient travel to specialized tertiary centers. The environmental impact associated with such travel remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to evaluate patient perspectives on the carbon footprint of their treatment journey and identify potential measures for its reduction in our facility in the north of Italy. Material/Methods: We included patients who underwent proton therapy at our facility between November 2023 and October 2024. With prior consent, participants completed a questionnaire assessing travel patterns, living arrangements during treatment, and awareness of the carbon footprint. Travel distances, transportation modes, and patient responses regarding potential environmental improvements were analyzed and carboon footprint calculated. The data were collected prospectively within the POWER registry (NCT05860361). Results: A total of 78 patients were included. Among these, 43 (55%) traveled from another region, with 39 (50%) relocating temporarily to the city of the proton therapy center. The median distance from patients’ homes to the center was 590 km [IQR, 313–963]. Travel methods for initial treatment included train (26%), car (21%), and plane (10%). Median carbon footprint for the return trip was 37.20 [IQR, 21.88-189.6] KgCO2. Thirty-six patients (46%) reported making two separate trips for the CT simulation and subsequent treatment, doubling the number of travels needed. During treatment, patients resided at a median distance of 15 km [IQR, 5–54] from the proton therapy center. For daily commutes, personal vehicles were the predominant choice (63%), followed by public transportation (28%). Median daily carbon footprint was 2.4 [IQR, 0.72-12.24] KgCO2. Only a minority demonstrated familiarity with the concept of carbon footprint awareness. However, the participants expressed a good sensitivity to the topic (Fig.1). When asked for measures for reducing environmental impact, patients suggested increasing the use of electric vehicles and enhancing the availability of public transportation to reach the proton therapy facility.