S1384
Interdisciplinary - Health economics & health services research
ESTRO 2026
per caseload at a radiation therapy facility. We evaluated carbon footprint reductions and annual carbon savings per treatment course by comparing hypo-fractionated regimens with conventional fractionation for breast and prostate radiotherapy. Material/Methods: Power consumption data were collected from May 2024 to Apr 2025. For relative comparisons, energy consumption for all CT simulators, linear accelerators (LINAC) and proton treatment machines was quantified using location-based measurements. We assumed uniform energy consumption across same type of machines, per-machine usage was estimated via linear modelling (R-4.3.2). Environmental impact analysis was carried out by converting measured power consumption to carbon emissions using Singapore’s latest grid-mix emission factor [1]. Total treatment beam-on time per LINAC (excluding imaging duration) was extracted from the oncology information system (Mosaiq, Elekta Pte Ltd). Overall annual reduction in carbon footprint for the corresponding conventional versus hypo-fractionated regimens was estimated for breast (25 vs 15 fractions) and prostate (37 vs 20 fractions) cancers using modelled beam-on times. Per-case idle time on LINAC were quantified by comparing machine total beam-on time to best-day operational (i.e. 9 hours) benchmarks. Results: The total carbon emission in a radiation facility with three CT simulators, nine linear accelerators, synchrotron-based proton full rotating gantry system were quantified and illustrated in figure 1. Proton facility accounts for the most carbon emission at 431 tonnes (54.1%). With hypo-fractionated treatment approach, the estimated annual reductions in energy consumption and carbon footprint for breast (-6387 kWh; -2632 kg) and prostate (-4922 kWh; -2028 kg) are illustrated in table1.
Conclusion: In a high-throughput radiation oncology facility, proton therapy showed substantially higher energy consumption than linac-based treatments, although overall consumption remained modest. Hypo- fractionated regimens in breast and prostate cancer reduced patients' treatment burden and demonstrated energy savings, translating to a modestly reduced carbon footprint. Further investigation is warranted for other cancer subsites where hypofractionation is supported by evidence- based non-inferiority studies. References: [1] Energy market authority of Singapore. Chapter 2: Energy Transformation. https://www.ema.gov.sg/resources/singapore-energy- statistics/chapter2. Accessed on: 16th Oct 2025[2] Shenker RF, Johnson TL, Ribeiro M, Rodrigues A, Chino J. Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Direct Power Consumption of Linear Accelerator-Based External Beam Radiation Therapy. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2022;8(3):101170. [3] Chuter R, Stanford-Edwards C, Cummings J, Taylor C, Lowe G, Holden E, Razak R, Glassborow E, Herbert S, Reggian G, Mee T, Lichter K, Aznar M. Towards estimating the carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy. Phys Med. 2023;112:102652. Keywords: Carbon footprint, energy saving, hypofractionation Digital Poster 723 Evaluating the automated extraction of radiation oncology trial data at scale from the ClinicalTrials.gov database using a large language model Fabio Dennstädt 1 , Lena Kretzschmar 2 , Nikola Cihoric 1 , Philip Heesen 3 , Maksym Fritsak 2 , Siyer Roohani 4,5 , Daniel M Aebersold 1 , Matthias Guckenberger 2 , Sebastian M Christ 2 1 Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2 Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3 Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin,
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online