S2817
RTT - RTT education, training, and advanced practice
ESTRO 2026
radiotherapy (oART) allows for correction of these changes. However, oART is resource intensive, typically requiring a multidisciplinary team at each adaptive session. We therefore aimed to develop and implement a Radiotherapy technologist (RTT)-only workflow and evaluate RTT performance when executing the workflow independently. Material/Methods:
operating equipment, understanding functionality, following treatment workflows and positioning patients, as well as methodical working and teamwork are suitable learning objectives for SBE. However, opinions varied on whether patient-related skills, communication and problem-solving abilities can be effectively practiced through SBE. Stakeholders also noted that SBE could increase students’ sense of preparedness but could also lead to overconfidence. Conclusion: Successful implementation of SBE for RTT education requires institutional support, sufficient resources, time and faculty training. To be effective, simulation must be realistic, learner-centred and include valid, up-to-date scenarios. SBE should complement and not replace clinical practice. Practical next steps involve setting up a clear implementation framework, exploring regional collaborations, and preserving customization and autonomy by aligning simulation with individual learning needs and offering flexible opportunities for self-directed learning. Ultimately, embedding SBE in RTT education may enhance care quality, workforce sustainability and job satisfaction. Keywords: work-based learning, RTT education References: Chau, M., Arruzza, E., & Johnson, N. (2022). Simulation - based education for medical radiation students: A scoping review. Journal Of Medical Radiation Sciences, 69(3), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.572Flinton, D, Khine, R., Mannion, L., et al. (2023). Gamification in radiotherapy education: adopting competitive task elements in simulation using the virtual environment of a radiotherapy treatment room (VERT) system. Journal Of Radiotherapy in Practice, 22, e109. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1460396923000262Offiah, G., Ekpotu, L. P., Murphy, S., et al. (2019). Evaluation of medical student retention of clinical skills following simulation training. BMC Medical Education, 19–263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1663-2 Implementation and evaluation of a radiotherapy technologist-led online adaptive radiotherapy workflow for head and neck cancer Ali Mohammad, Tina Rantzau Bratberg Jensen, Anne Marie Mira Lindegaard, Jeppe Friborg, Mogens Bernsdorf, Katrin Elisabet Haakansson, Mikkel Skaarup Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark Purpose/Objective: Anatomical changes during radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) are common and can compromise accurate dose delivery. Online adaptive Proffered Paper 1029
In oART two plans are generated for each fraction: a scheduled plan (original plan recalculated on the daily anatomy) and an adapted plan (re-optimized to the daily anatomy). After online review, the most appropriate plan is selected for treatment delivery (Figure 1).Ten HNC patients treated with curatively intended oART on Ethos (Varian Medical Systems) were included (33-34 fractions). Based on experience from the first five patients, an RTT training program and a decision support tool was developed.Patient 6- 10 were treated with the RTT-only workflow with physician presence at fraction 1–6, after which the responsibility of adaption was handed over to the RTTs for the remainder of the treatment course. Weekly offline physician reviews were performed for safety assurance and potential continuous feedback. Physicists were present for the first 12 fractions before also proceeding to weekly offline reviews.To evaluate the RTT performance, six fractions each over the treatment course of patients six to ten were randomly selected. Three radiation oncologists independently reviewed the fractions offline for preferred choice of plan (scheduled versus adapted). The fractions were categorized as consensus (all physicians selected the same plan) or non-consensus (disagreement in plan choice). In case of consensus the physician-selected plan was considered the reference; for non-consensus cases, the majority physician choice served as the reference. Concordance between the RTT-chosen plan and reference in consensus and non-consensus cases were estimated as percentage of agreement. Results:
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online