Implementation of online workshops on IGABT in LACC: experience of BrachyAcademy
Elena Dizendorf,
The Netherlands
PD-0085
Abstract
Implementation of online workshops on IGABT in LACC: experience of BrachyAcademy
Authors: Elena Dizendorf1, Alina Sturdza2, Luca Tagliaferri3, Luca Russo4, Nicole Nesvacil2, Christian Kirisits2
1Elekta, Brachytherapy, Veenendaal, The Netherlands; 2Medical University of Vienna, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Radiation Oncology, Vienna, Austria; 3Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Radiation Oncology, Rome, Italy; 4Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Diagnostic Radiology, Rome, Italy
Show Affiliations
Hide Affiliations
Purpose or Objective
To support brachytherapy users during the COVID-19 pandemic and improve their confidence in image-guided adaptive brachytherapy (IGABT) in locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC), online workshops were developed and implemented by BrachyAcademy (non-profit peer-to-peer educational initiative in Elekta).
Material and Methods
In 2021-2022 two online workshops were organized. Each workshop was conducted over 6 hours in 2 consecutive days. Participating teams (min. 1 radiation oncologist/clinical oncologist (RO/CO) and 1 medical physicist (MP) from each hospital) had to send a complete clinical case of LACC including brachytherapy DICOM treatment files and questions to the faculty. During the workshop, feedback was given to each clinical case by 5 faculty members (2 RO, 1 Radiologist, 2 MP). Participants competed a post-workshop questionnaire which included combination of qualitative and quantitative questions via yes/no responses, Likert scale, and 1 to 10 scale. We describe curriculum deployment, questions raised by participants, feedback on clinical cases provided by teachers, and workshop evaluation by participants.
Results
21 teams from 8 countries (Europe, Asia, Latin America) participated in two online workshops. The total number of participants was 49: 23 RO/CO (47%), 22 MP (45%), and 4 RTT (8%). The clinical cases represented LACC with FIGO stages from IB3 to IVA.
We summarized the participant queries according to four workshop topics (Table 1).
During both, Workshop1 (W1) and Workshop 2 (W2) the following areas of improvement were identified by the faculty: familiarity with the GEC ESTRO and ICRU 89 recommendations for contouring and planning based on clinical drawings and MRI sequencing choice; appropriate selection of the applicator, including length, angle and diameter; experience in using the interstitial needles. Other shortages identified among the participants were: lack of verification of applicator digitization in 3D view after slice-by-slice reconstruction; wrong identification of applicator surface and consequential misplacement of the 3D applicator model due of vaginal packing; challenges with the dose optimization. All these issues were addressed during the workshop.
The participants rated both workshops with overall scores 8,3 for W1 and 8,5 for W2. In 82% participants the training course fully met expectations and in 18% partly for W1. For W2 76% had their expectations met completely and 24% partly. Participants also provided suggestions to improve the workshop content and organization, and proposed topics for future workshops: present clinical cases with complications and discuss how to handle them; present a challenging clinical case by the faculty; send one clinical case to all participants before the workshop and compare contouring and treatment planning results.
![](https://www.estro.org:443/ESTRO/media/Abstracts/29/20d6fe06-9642-4c08-a889-d051eb356740.jpeg)
Conclusion
We successfully implemented the online workshops for BT. We encourage teams to organize similar trainings with discussion of clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams.