S1495
Interdisciplinary - Public engagement and visibility of radiotherapy
ESTRO 2026
physicists balance precision and empathy in radiotherapy communication Peta Lonski 1,2 , Jacinta Yap 1,3 , Tomas Tomas Kron 1,4 1 Physical Sciences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 2 Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 3 School of Physics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4 Medical Radiation Physics, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia Purpose/Objective: This work aims to explore how medical physicists can support the translation of technical concepts such as ‘dose constraints’ and ‘margin calculation’ into patient- friendly language without sacrificing scientific rigour. As first steps, use of relevant terms in the literature was studied and a survey designed to explore the attitude of radiation oncology medical physicists (ROMP) towards communication. Material/Methods: PubMed was searched from 2000 to 2024 in both title and all fields for the occurrence of several pairs of keywords commonly used to describe radiotherapy treatment planning concepts (eg. Toxicity and adverse events; Dose constraints and dose guidance). These findings were interpreted to highlight how language choices influence comprehension, trust, and interdisciplinary collaboration. As an initial step a summary of ‘unintended’ consequences of a change in terminology was compiled. Results: To date the scientific literature does indicate only a gradual change of terminology without a consistent shift toward more ‘patient friendly’ language. Figure 1 illustrates this for the terms ‘toxicity’ and ‘adverse events’ in title and all fields. More conventional and less patient friendly terms are more common as can also be seen in Figure 2 which shows the ratio occurrence of two terminology pairs over time. It was noted that the preference for more specific technical terms in the scientific literature would not necessarily be applicable to other means of communication such as social media. A few other issues were raised in the discussions:Is there a risk that data retrieval, eg in literature reviews, could be inconsistent if terminology is changedSome terms are used in a quantitative context such a grades for toxicity and constraints for dose or volume. Can new terminology do this justice?Could the use of less ‘negative’ or ‘alerting’ terms reduce the need for the rigorous quality assurance radiotherapy is known for. This could affect in particular physics staffing.Will patients (and possibly lawyers) be less accepting of actual toxicity or side effects if they are made out to be less worryingIt was also noted that the use terminology similar to other
oncological professions would be important which may limit the choices available.
Conclusion: As radiotherapy professionals re-examine how language shapes perception, physicists need to become aware of how terminology is used to communicate with all stakeholders. Future work will include a multi ‐ centre survey of ROMPs in respect to communication practice and attitudes. Keywords: Communication, technical terms Digital Poster 2240 Improving patient experience of radiotherapy through public engagement Helene Judge 1 , Andrew Land 1 , Beverly Agass 1 , Neil G Burnet 1 , Ashwini Job 1 , Hilary Stobart 1 , Amy Tang 1 , Poppy Howe 2 , Rachael Webster 3 , Nicola Le Blond 4 , Charlotte E Coles 4 1 Radiotherapy Research Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2 Radiotherapy Department, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3 Radiotherapy Department, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 4 Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Purpose/Objective: Despite many efforts to demystify radiotherapy,
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online