ESTRO 38 Abstract book

S125 ESTRO 38

their families and health professionals about radiation oncology as a treatment for cancer. Material and Methods Online learning platform was designed with a focus on ensuring a rich learning environment by situating the course through the story of patients and allowing opportunity for reflection, questions and discussion. The platform consisted of 39 steps-15 vieos, 15 articles, 2 discussion for a, 6 multiple choice quizzes and 1 final exercise. The Massive Open Online Course was launched in September 2018 and the steps were delivered over a 2 week period. Results 1,489 people signed up to the MOOC from 111 countries. The majority were from the UK (24%), Ireland (20%), Australia (5%), India (4%), US (4%), Egypt (3%), Canada (2%, Spain (2%) and Mexico (2%). 50% of attendees were >56 years of age. A total of 958 comments were posted within the MOOC platform by 225 leareners. In the post course evaluation survey, 97% stated that the course met or exceeded their expections. 96% said the course provided them with new knowledge or skills. 65% have shared the knowledge they learned with other people and 51% have already applied what they learned. Conclusion Using online technology to explain radiation oncology is an engaging and effective methodology that has been very positively reviewed. This MOOC is available to an international audience and is one method that appears constructive in bridging the gap in knowledge of radiation oncology worldwide. PV-0256 European survey on electronic patient- reported outcomes by the EORTC young Radiation Oncology Group A.H. Thieme 1 , Y.G. Eller 2 , E. Rivin del Campo 3 , A. Abrunhosa-Branquinho 4 , S. Adebahr 5 , I. Desideri 6 , M. Fiore 7 , S. Hafeez 8 , B. Hoeben 9 , O. Kaidar-Person 10 , I. Kindts 11 , I. Meattini 6 , C. Mercier 12 , F. Mehrhof 1 , D. Nevens 13 , L. Ollivier 14 , M.H. Suppli 15 , L. Visani 6 , B.G. Baumert 16 , C. Ostheimer 17 1 Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Department of Radiation Oncology, Berlin, Germany; 2 University Hospital of Bern, Department of Radiation Oncology, Bern, Switzerland ; 3 Tenon University Hospital - Sorbonne University, Department of Radiation Oncology, Paris, France ; 4 Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte- E.P.E. - Hospital Santa Maria, Department of Radiation Oncology, Lisbon, Portugal; 5 University Medical Center Freiburg, Department of Radiation Oncology, Freiburg, Germany ; 6 Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi - University of Florence, Radiation Oncology Unit- Oncology Department, Florence, Italy; 7 Campus Bio- medico, Radiation Oncology, Rome, Italy ; 8 Institute of Cancer Research - The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, Radiotherapy and Imaging, London, United Kingdom ; 9 Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands ; 10 Rambam Medical Center, Oncology Institute- Radiation Oncology and Neuroncology Unit, Haifa, Israel ; 11 University Hospitals Leuven, Lab of Experimental Radiation Oncology, Leuven, Belgium ; 12 University of Antwerp, Molecular Imaging- Pathology- Radiotherapy & Oncology MIPRO, Antwerp, Belgium; 13 Iridium Cancer Network, Department of Radiation Oncology, Wilrijk- Antwerp, Belgium; 14 University Hospital CHRU Morvan, Radiation Oncology Department, Brest, France; 15 Rigshospitalet- Copenhagen University Hospital, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen, Denmark; 16 GROW – School for Oncology - Maastricht University Medical Centre, Dept. Radiation Oncology Maastro, Maastricht, The Netherlands; 17 Universität Halle, Department of Radiation Oncology, Halle, Germany

Purpose or Objective Complete and

accurate examiner-independent documentation of meaningful patient orientated clinical outcomes is essential for both clinical trials and daily practice. Currently, adverse events (AEs) following radiotherapy (RT) are mostly investigator-reported, neglecting the essential perspective of the patient. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be prognostic for clinical outcome and are becoming increasingly important. The young Radiation Oncology Group (yROG) of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) is conducting a pan-European survey to capture utilization rates, importance and perceived benefits of PROs and to rank ideal features of an electronic tool for PRO assessment (ePRO) in regards to RT. The findings will be used to create an app for RT specific PRO assessment usable on handheld devices and PCs which will be freely available as a science tool for the radiation oncology community. Material and Methods The survey was addressed to physicians, radiation therapy technicians (RTTs) and nurses who regularly treat and manage patients undergoing radio(chemo)therapy. A publicly accessible online survey consisting of 40 questions and rating each ePRO-feature on a 5-point scale was created and promoted via newsletters. Members of the EORTC network and national radiation oncology societies from Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom participated in the survey. The survey is ongoing and will be closed as of 31st October 2018. Results The survey collected 199 replies up until 22nd October 2018. The distribution by profession and country is reflected in Figure 1. PROs were considered to be important for RT treatment, although assessments were implemented by less than half of the interviewees only (41.2%). Reasons for non-use of PROs were additional time consumption and absence or inaccessibility of ePRO. The majority of survey respondents confirmed the convenience of and demand for PROs. Almost unanimously (97.9%), respondents affirmed they would use ePRO in clinical routine if it were available at their institution. One of the features ranked most highly for ePRO was patient usability (on average 4.69 of 5 points). A first usable prototype of the app could be created and its further development will consider the rating of features (Figure 2).