ESTRO 2021 Abstract Book

S547

ESTRO 2021

Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first prospective clinical implementation and validation of VQA, which we observed to be safe and efficient. Using a conservative threshold, VQA can substantially reduce the number of required measurements for patient-specific QA, leading to a more effective allocation of clinical resources. OC-0694 Can remote planning be as efficient as on-site and become a definitive shift since COVID19? M. Colomer 1 , D. Amat 1 , A. López 1 , G. Frontera 1 , U. Gallardo 1 , M. Parcerisa 1 , R. Pujol 1 , A. Peralta 1 , T. Ramírez 1 , D. Navarro 1 , J. García-Miguel 1 , T. Valdivielso 1 , Á. Infestas 1 , M. Lizondo 1 , E. Ambroa 1 1 Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Medical Physics Unit, Terrassa, Spain Purpose or Objective With COVID19 pandemic we started working partially from home with remote access to clinical dosimetry systems. The aim of this study is to check if in these conditions we have been able to maintain, improve or worsen our planning workflow time in order to assess whether remote dosimetry planning could be implemented definitely or not. Materials and Methods At 16 th March 2020 we set up working partially from home due to pandemic. We divided the physics unit in 2 teams. One was working from home and the other one at hospital changing every week. We increased the use of Elekta Mosaiq Quality Check List (QCL) v2.64 to better communicate not only between physicists and dosimetrists but also with physicians. From the first patient treated in 2012, we have always recorded the planning time duration since data arrives for calculation until plan is ready to treat. We collect 4 dates in our own Access database: data arrival, physicist review, medical review, and plan exported with QA done. The time between these 4 dates and the total planning time are compared: calculation and physicist review time (PRT), medical review time (MRT), QA and plan approval time (PAT) and total time (TT). We analysed 9601 patients who were planned from December 2012 to December 2020: 8362 before 16/03/20 and 1239 from 16/03/20 to 31/12/20, during pandemic. We compared also the variation in planning time, by plan type (All types, 3DCRT, VMAT and SBRT VMAT), of 1239 patients planned during pandemic (16/03/20 – 31/12/20) and 1259 patients planned in the same period of 2019, before pandemic. Only patients with all dates filled out were selected (95.8%). Results Results are summarized in Table 1, where we compare mean values ± SD, range (min – max) and median values in days, and in Figure 1, where we show planning time variation by technique in the same period during and before pandemic. Comparing with the same period of 2019, we have been able to improve our overall planning workflow time by about 0.4 days (13.4%) with half of staff working remotely. Most steps have been completed more quickly for all calculation techniques except for SBRT VMAT that it was 0.7 days (6.0%) more. Medical review time has been almost equal in all cases. The best reduction is achieved in VMAT plans with a total time of 1.2 days (26.2%) less than before doing remote work.