S2685
RTT - Patient experience and quality of life
ESTRO 2026
Digital Poster Highlight 4406
procedure could enhance patient preparedness, comfort, and overall experience. Analysis of the RTEQ survey indicated that the survey was perceived as somewhat superficial, with questions that did not delve deeply into the subject matter, as there were no items addressing potential improvements.
Long-Term Patterns of Radiation-Induced Fatigue in Head and Neck Cancer: Impact of Concurrent Chemotherapy Ingrid Vethe Hernes, Grete May Engeseth Cancer Clinic of Helse Bergen, University Hospital of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Purpose/Objective: Fatigue is a well-recognized adverse effect among patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) (1). Evidence suggests that the concurrent administration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) is associated with increased acute fatigue compared with RT alone (2). The aim of this study was to describe patterns of long-term radiation-induced fatigue after RT for HNC with or without chemotherapy. Material/Methods: Patients with HNC of the oral cavity, pharynx and larynx, treated with curative intent Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT) were included. Fatigue was evaluated using three items from the EORTC QLQ- 30-v3.00 describing the symptoms “Did you need to rest?”, “Have you felt weak” and “Were you tired”. Each symptom was scored on a four-point Likert scale (“not at all”, “ a little”, “quite a bit” and “very much”) and aggregated into a fatigue (FA) scale score (0-100), with higher score indicating greater fatigue (3). Assessments were performed at baseline, end of radiotherapy (RadEnd), 6, 12 and 24 months after post RT. For single-item symptoms, responses of “quite a bit” or “very much” were classified as moderate to severe. Results: A total of 179 patients (median age 65 years) were included. Among these, 52.5% received concurrent chemotherapy and 32.4% underwent surgery. The median prescribed radiation dose was 68 Gy (range 50–70 Gy), delivered in 5–6 fractions per week. A total of 128 patients completed all scheduled assessments. The highest proportion of moderate to severe symptoms was observed at RadEnd for all individual fatigue items. Compared with baseline, symptom burden for each item improved substantially at 24 months (Table I).
Conclusion: There is a need for a more in-depth questionnaire about the patients’ subjective experience of the radiotherapy process, ideally with separate versions for palliative and curative patients. The RTEQ’s design limitations may have influenced the study findings. Additionally, responses provided during the inclusion telephone call could have affected patients’ sense of security, potentially contributing to positive outcomes. Comparing these results with those from curative treatment patients would provide valuable insights. References: [1] van der Velden, J., Willmann, J., Spa ł ek, M., Oldenburger, E., Brown, S., Kazmierska, J., ... & Hoskin, P. (2022). ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with uncomplicated bone metastases. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 173, 197- 206.[2] Oldenburger, E., Brown, S., Willmann, J., van der Velden, J. M., Spa ł ek, M., van der Linden, Y. M., ... & Hoskin, P. (2022). ESTRO ACROP guidelines for external beam radiotherapy of patients with complicated bone metastases. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 173, 240- 253.[3] Olausson, K., Holst Hansson, A., Zackrisson, B., Edvardsson, D., Östlund, U. & Nyholm, T. Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology 2017;3-4: 7-12 Keywords: Palliative radiotherapy, RTEQ
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online