S1440
Interdisciplinary - Other
ESTRO 2026
different ProQOL-HEALTH dimensions.No statistically significant differences were found in ProQOL-HEALTH dimensions between professional groups. However, a statistically significant association was observed between BO scores and both the number of working hours per week (p = 0.033) and the expressed need for psychological support (p = 0.014). Healthcare professionals with a higher workload exhibited greater BO levels and more frequently reported a need for psychological support. Furthermore, a significant correlation was found between MD scores and the average number of patients managed daily (p = 0.027). Conclusion: Our study showed that the ProQOL of radiotherapy healthcare professionals in our department is moderate and influenced by workload and the need for psychological support. The emotional burden and moral challenges inherent to oncology care can contribute to exhaustion over time. Addressing these factors through supportive measures and workload regulation is essential to maintain staff well-being and ensure quality patient care. Keywords: Professional quality of life, radiotherapy. A novel multidisciplinary meeting framework for evaluating candidates for cardiac radiotherapy Ida Derish 1 , Deepti Ranganathan 2 , Joanne Alfieri 3 , Martin L. Bernier 4 , Carmen Bergom 5 , Sarah Lee 6 , Nadia Giannetti 2 , Tarek Hijal 3 , Ali Javaheri 7 , Neil Kopek 3 , Piotr Pater 8 , Clifford Robinson 5 , Abhinav Sharma 2 , Gabriela Stroian 8 , Ian J. Gerard 3 1 Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 2 Cardiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 3 Radiation Oncology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 4 Cardiol, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada. 5 Radiation Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. 6 Medical Biophysics, Western University, London, Canada. 7 Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. 8 Medical Physics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada Purpose/Objective: Cardiac RT is emerging as a potential non-invasive therapy for advanced cardiac conditions, including refractory ventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, and end-stage heart failure. However, its clinical application is hindered by limited evidence, lack of standardized workflows, and variability in practice across institutions. In this work, through international collaboration with centres delivering cardiac RT, we developed and evaluated a framework for the multidisciplinary cardiac radiotherapy meeting Digital Poster 1762
(MCRM), to systematically assess patient candidacy, guide clinical decision-making, and enhance future data consistency for cardiac RT. Material/Methods: This framework was developed by adapting established oncology tumour board models to cardiac indications (Fig.1). The MCRM includes cardiology subspecialists (heart failure, electrophysiology), radiation oncologists, medical physicists, and imaging specialists. The MCRM collaboratively reviews complex cardiac cases, documenting consensus recommendations on patient suitability for RT and evaluation of RT planning. The framework was retrospectively validated through mock MCRM meetings evaluating four patients previously enrolled
or screened in two clinical trials: Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation for VT (StAR-VT,
NCT05258422) and Whole Heart Radiotherapy for End- stage Heart Failure (ESHF-WHRT, NCT06299176).Fig.1: Members and roles of the MCRM
Results: All four use-cases demonstrated the MCRM’s utility in refining patient selection and ensuring ethical, evidence-based decision-making. Two patients were deemed suitable for cardiac RT based on clinical stability, disease burden, and treatment goals; two were excluded due to high risk or contraindications (connective tissue disease, multi-organ failure). The framework facilitated structured multidisciplinary dialogue, improved understanding between cardiology and radiation oncology, and underscored the importance of individualized patient-centered evaluation. Key insights included the necessity of balancing palliative versus disease-modifying intent, accounting for comorbidities and frailty, and standardizing reporting. Conclusion: The Cardiac Tumour Board framework provides a structured, consensus-driven model for the multidisciplinary evaluation of patients considered for cardiac radiotherapy. By formalizing communication between cardiology and radiation oncology, it enhances clinical consistency, ethical rigor, and data standardization for this emerging therapy. Retrospective validation demonstrated its feasibility
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online