ESTRO 37 Abstract book

Conclusion Our data suggests that XRCC-1 hetero & mutant genotypes are strong pre-disposing factors in locally advanced laryngeal SCC. It has demonstrated the influence of gene environment interactions (smoking or tobacco chewing and alcohol intake) in modifying susceptibility to Laryngeal cancer. Poor treatment response of CRT in cases with mutant & hetero genotype of XRCC-1 has demonstrated the role of polymorphism in predicting an individual’s response to CRT, and thus, may help in selecting a suitable treatment regimen. EP-2396 A survey of attitudes, understanding and interest in participating in cancer trials in Ireland. J. Mulfaul 1 , A. Craig 1 , P. Murphy 2 1 Trinity College Dublin, Discipline of Radiation Therapy, Dublin 2, Ireland 2 Trinity College Dublin, Discipline of Occupational Therapy, Dublin 2, Ireland Purpose or Objective Advancements in cancer treatment are hindered by failure to complete clinical trials because of insufficient patient accrual. 2-3% of all cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). Negative attitudes towards trials can deter patients from participating. Little is known about the general public’s attitude and understanding of cancer trials in Ireland. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the attitudes, understanding and interest of the general public towards participating in CCTs, and whether attitude or understanding affect interest in participation. Whether interest in participation varies according to treatment modality was also explored. Material and Methods A survey was distributed to public community groups, selected using simple random sampling and convenience sampling. A quantitative survey was developed in hardcopy and online format, to capture three aspects; i) attitude – positive beliefs, safety, personal involvement, information needs, negative expectations, ii) understanding iii) willingness – interest and motivation. Associations between understanding and attitude, understanding and willingness, and attitude and willingness were assessed using Chi-square tests. Reasons for participants' motivation and level of interest in participating in surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy clinical trials were examined using multiple choice questions and open-ended responses. Results In total, 174 complete surveys were returned from eleven community groups. Participants had positive attitudes towards CCTs but had concerns about their safety if personally involved. Having negative expectations of CCTs was significantly associated with no interest in participating in CCTs. 24% understood all basic CCT principles. The most misunderstood concept was randomisation, with 54% failing to understand the need for randomisation in CCTs. Participants with better understanding of CCTs were more interested in involvement. 63% were inclined to participate but needed more information. Over half of participants' motivation to enrol in a trial was to gain personal benefit. Conclusion Participants viewed CCTs positively when considered for society, but were hesitant when considered personally. Interest appeared conditional and participants want to derive personal health benefits if participating. Many indicated inclination to participate but needed more information. Negative perceptions of CCT safety may supersede positive attributes when faced with the decision to participate. Lack of understanding of the process may heighten concerns regarding safety and

deter participation in CCTs. The resounding desire for information and the opinion that all patients should be invited to participate in trials, highlights the public’s value of informed decision-making. The results indicate the need for greater public education regarding the benefits and principles of CCTs to increase future trial accrual. EP-2397 Therapeutic Radiographer follow up for prostate cancer patients. S. Hetherington 1 , K. Crowther 1 , S. Jain 1,2 , D. Mitchell 1 , J. O'Sullivan 1,2 , L. Shum 1 , T. Gilleece 3 1 The Cancer Centre, Radiotherapy, Belfast, United Kingdom 2 Queen's University Belfast, Centre for Cancer Research and Cell Biology, Belfast, United Kingdom 3 Ulster University, Therapeutic Radiography- School of Health Sciences, Belfast, United Kingdom Purpose or Objective To examine the impact to both the patient and Oncology review team in extending the role of the Therapeutic Radiographer to undertake follow-up review of prostate cancer patients who have completed a radical course of external beam radiotherapy treatment. Material and Methods A prospective observational study recruited 30 patients attending for routine radiotherapy follow-up. Clinic lists were screened for potentially eligible patients, and information was posted to the suitable patients for consideration of study participation. Eligible and willing patients were consented upon arrival; 1:1 randomisation was performed for review with doctor or therapeutic radiographer. Following review, patients completed a short anonymous structured feedback questionnaire. Waiting times at clinic, at a number of time-points were collected and assessed to provide quantitative information. Information was also collected on the number of patients reviewed by the therapeutic radiographer who subsequently required review by the doctor together with reasons for additional consultation. Results Of the 44 patients identified, 30 were recruited. Average time from scheduled appointment time to departure from clinic was 36mins for both the doctor and therapeutic radiographer. The average length of consultation was 19mins for the therapeutic radiographer and 10mins for the doctor. Average length of wait from scheduled appointment to time taken for review was 17mins for the therapeutic radiographer and 25mins for the doctor. Doctors were required to subsequently review 2 patients who had been randomised for review with the therapeutic radiographer. Questionnaires were distributed to all patients, 2 were not completed. All patients reported confidence in their reviewer, with some variation in the satisfaction of the review, 26/28 patients being most satisfied and 2/28 patients scoring 4/5 on the scale, one reviewed by a doctor and one by a therapeutic radiographer. In terms of preference of reviewer, 23/28 patients had no preference, 2/28 patients preferred to be seen by a doctor and 3/28 patients stated a preference for review with a therapeutic radiographer. Additional comments were encouraged which 13/28 patients provided. Conclusion The results of the study are encouraging, presenting opportunity for further development in a rewarding aspect of the therapeutic radiographers role. Clinical Site Specialist Radiographers are best placed to undertake and implement such a development. Importantly, this study recognises the potential improvements this model could present in helping to transform our health service in line with UK government recommendations, not only for therapeutic radiographers but through adoption by