ESTRO 36 Abstract Book

577 / 1096

S562 ESTRO 36
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Results
For the four patients, the DGART resulted to only one
replanning during the first week of treatment. For the
rectum wall V72, the overdose was on average reduced of
50% (100% maximum) and the mean dose reduced of 4.5
Gy compared to standard IGRT. For the bladder wall V 70,
the overdose was on average reduced of 19% (37%
maximum) and the mean dose reduced of 6.6 Gy compared
to standard IGRT. For the prostate, the D99 was on average
0.5 Gy higher (0.7 Gy maximum) using DGART compared
to standard IGRT.
Conclusion
DGART with only one replanning applied to a selected sub-
group of patients may reduce the rectum and bladder
overdose in prostate IGRT.
Poster: RTT track: Patient care, side effects and
communication
PO-1018 Improvement of radiation-induced late
toxicity after hyperbaric oxygen treatment
R. Roncero1, J. Pardo1, E. Jimenez-Jimenez1, D. Morera2,
N. Aymar 1, I. Ortiz1, M. Vidal1
1 Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Radiation Oncology,
palma de mallorca, Spain
2 Hospital Universitari Son Espases, Medical Physics,
palma de mallorca, Spain
Purpose or Objective
To assess the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy
(HBOT) in the management of patients with radiation-
induced late effects, in which more conservative
treatments have failed
Material and Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 33
patients treated at our Department, from 2012 to 2016,
who developed late toxicity (Grade IV CTCAE4.0) and
which did not respond to conservative treatment, and
recorded the variation, if occurred, in the degree of
toxicity after hyperbaric treatment. The average age of
the patients was 61 +/- 12 years and the mean dose
delivered during the radiotherapy treatment was 52 +/-
12Gy with standard fractionation. Regarding HBOT, they
received an average of 61 sessions. The patients presented
the following toxicities: enteritis/proctitis in 33%, bone
necrosis and sacroileitis in 30%, skin injury 9%, Cystitis 6%
and others 9% (neurocognitive impairment, dysphagia and
xerostomy).
In order to its evaluation, responses were classified into
three groups according the CTCAE4.0 scoring:
Major Response Group: Improvement of toxicity from
Grade IV to Grade I or 0 (without toxicity, or minor toxicity
not requiring medical treatment),
Minor Response Group: Improvement from Grade IV to
Grade III/II (permanent toxicity controlled with medical
treatment) and
No Response Group. The statistical study was carried out
by using SPSS_22.
Results
Ninety-one percent of the patients (30) completed the
treatment sessions with hyperbaric chamber scheduled (2
patients didn´t start the treatment and 1 patient stopped
after 4 sessions). Statistical significant toxicity
improvement (p<0.05) was observed after the hyperbaric
oxygen treatment. 60% of the patients presented a Major
Response, and 18% presented a Minor Response. 9% (3) of
our patients were no responders. In our patients, no
relationship was founded between the response and the
age, the number of sessions of HBOT, or the time relapsed
since radiation treatment to the indication of the HBOT.
Table 1 presents the patients outcomes according the
toxicity.
Conclusion
In our patients, there is a significant improvement in late
radiation toxicity after HBOT, with the best responses
being observed in gastro-intestinal and bone toxicity.
PO-1019 Mobile Oncology: Survey with Healthcare
Professionals about Telemedicine, mHealth and mobile
Apps
K. Kessel1,2, M. Vogel1, F. Schmidt-Graf3, S. Combs2,3
1Technical University Munich TUM, Department of
Radiation Oncology, München, Germany
2Institute for Innovative Radiotherapy iRT, Department
of Radiation Sciences DRS, Neuherberg, Germany
3Technical University Munich TUM, Department of
Neurology, München, Germany
Purpose or Objective
Mobile applications (apps) are an evolving trend in the
medical field. To date, no native mobile applications for
smartphones or tablets in an oncological setting exist,
which support patients during therapy and follow-up and
allow for data analysis and/or direct feedback about
therapy parameters. Moreover, there is an ongoing
discussion whether such apps are really valuable, and
whether healthcare professionals (HCP) will accept their
use in clinical day-to-day life. Hence, we analyzed their
attitude about telemedicine, mHealth, and mobile apps.
Material and Methods
We developed an online survey with 24 questions
evaluating HCPs’ attitude towards telemedicine and
patients using medical mobile apps in general, as well as
specified questions on functionality and possible
disadvantages of an app. A link to the survey was sent to
all HCPs of our hospital via an in-house e-mail distributor
and lasted for six weeks.
Results
A total of 108 HCPs completed the survey. Of all, 88.9%
consider telemedicine as useful, 84.3% versus 15.7%
support the idea of an oncological app complementing
classical treatment. Automatic reminders, timetables,
laboratory results, and assessing side effects as well as
quality of life during therapy were rated as the most
important functions. In contrast, uncertainty regarding
medical responsibility (88.2%) and data security (82.3%)
were reasons mostly named by critics. The wish for
personal contact between HCP and patient (41.2%),
missing technical skills (23.5%) and disbelieving in
improvements of data documentation (23.5%) are
additional reasons. Of all respondents, 77.8% (84/108)
believe in a resulting time saving if collected data by an