Postgraduate education in radiation oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic - What did we learn?

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic the ESTRO School who provides international non-profit postgraduate education in Radiation Oncology and related disciplines, including Medical Physics and Radiation Technology, had to close down all live educational activities and turn online, although having only limited experience. The paper describes the experience, discusses the limitations and benefits of online education and suggests directions for the future. Materials and methods: Data about format and feedback from attendees and faculty members from the course activities held in 2019, 2020 and 2021 were made available from the ESTRO School. Results: In 2020, all but two out of thirty live courses that happened before the lockdown were canceled. Among the 18 courses scheduled in the second half of the year, seven went online with a short notice. Each course planned their activities quite differently, from compressed courses with consecutive full days online program to courses over several weeks with a few hours online a week. Both numbers of participants and different nationalities were higher than live courses in 2019 for the seven courses happening online, and courses were well evaluated by participants and faculties. Roughly-one-third of participants would prefer online courses in the future. Discussion: Although online education was well received by the majority, pros and cons exist and especially the personal discussions and networking were missed. Online education and live education are not comparable but can complement each other. Careful balancing these activities in the future is important and strategies for online andragogy are needed.

How public health services pay for radiotherapy in Europe: an ESTRO-HERO analysis of reimbursement.

Reimbursement is a key factor in defining which resources are made available to ensure quality, efficiency, availability, and access to specific health-care interventions. This Policy Review assesses publicly funded radiotherapy reimbursement systems in Europe. We did a survey of the national societies of radiation oncology in Europe, focusing on the general features and global structure of the reimbursement system, the coverage scope, and level for typical indications. The annual expenditure covering radiotherapy in each country was also collected. Most countries have a predominantly budgetary-based system. Variability was the major finding, both in the components of the treatment considered for reimbursement, and in the fees paid for specific treatment techniques, fractionations, and indications. Annual expenses for radiotherapy, including capital investment, available in 12 countries, represented between 4·3% and 12·3% (average 7·8%) of the cancer care budget. Although an essential pillar in multidisciplinary oncology, radiotherapy is an inexpensive modality with a modest contribution to total cancer care costs. Scientific societies and policy makers across Europe need to discuss new strategies for reimbursement, combining flexibility with incentives to improve productivity and quality, allowing radiation oncology services to follow evolving evidence.

Recommendations for the organisation of care in paediatric radiation oncology across Europe: a SIOPE-ESTRO-PROS-CCI-Europe collaborative project in the framework of the JARC.

Disparities in survival and long-term side-effects from paediatric cancer are observed across European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE)-affiliated countries. The Joint Action on Rare Cancers (JARC) is a project supported by the European Union and member states aiming to formulate recommendations on rare cancers, including paediatric malignancies, to reduce inequalities and to improve health outcomes. Most paediatric cancers are treated by a combination of systemic agents, surgery and/or radiotherapy. Radiotherapy for children is becoming increasingly complex because of the growing availability of new modalities and techniques and the evolution in molecular biology. These added challenges have the potential to enhance disparities in survival and side-effects between countries, but also among centres in the same country. To tackle radiotherapy-related inequalities, representatives of SIOPE, European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology, Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society and Childhood Cancer International-Europe defined 'standard' and 'optional' levels to deliver Good Clinical Practice-compliant treatment in paediatric radiation oncology with a focus on patient-related care, education and training. In addition, more than 250 paediatric radiotherapy centres across the SIOPE-affiliated countries have been mapped. For a better understanding of resources in paediatric radiotherapy, JARC representatives are working on an online survey for paediatric radiation oncologists of each centre in SIOPE-affiliated countries. The outcome of this survey will give an insight into the strengths and weaknesses of paediatric radiotherapy across SIOPE-affiliated countries and can be relevant for European Reference Networks in terms of collaboration pathways and referrals in paediatric radiotherapy.

Radiation Oncology. Optimal Health for All, Together. ESTRO vision, 2030.

Radiation oncology has seen considerable change since ESTRO adopted its previous vision statement, less than 10 years ago. The Society has now formulated a new vision for 2030, which remains dedicated to its mission, whilst adapting to evolving contexts and the transforming landscape. Aligning with the new vision, ESTRO has developed strategic priorities for the coming years. This document, written on behalf of the Board and its leadership, describes ESTRO's strategic focus on translating science and evidence into practice, supporting professional development in the discipline, further strengthening the Society and on embracing an active policy-role.

The optimal utilization proportion of external beam radiotherapy in European countries: An ESTRO-HERO analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The absolute number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site. RESULTS: In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countries.

The impact of cancer incidence and stage on optimal utilization of radiotherapy: Methodology of a population based analysis by the ESTRO-HERO project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The impact of differences in the distribution of major cancer sites and stages at diagnosis among 4 European countries on the optimal utilization proportion (OUP) of patients who should receive external beam radiotherapy was assessed within the framework of the ESTRO-HERO project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) were used. Population based stages at diagnosis from the cancer registries of Belgium, Slovenia, the Greater Poland region of Poland, and The Netherlands were used to assess the OUP for each country. A sensitivity analysis was carried out. RESULTS: The overall OUP by country varied from the lowest of 48.3% in Australia to the highest of 53.4% in Poland; among European countries the variation was limited to 3%. Cancer site specific OUPs showed differences according to the variability in stage at diagnosis across countries. The most important impact on the OUP by country was due to changes in relative frequency of tumours rather than stage at diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: This methodology can be adapted using European data, thus facilitating the planning of resources required to cope with the demand for radiotherapy in Europe, taking into account the national variability in cancer incidence.

Radiotherapy equipment and departments in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO - the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries. METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 26-29), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.3-1.5) and 1.4 (range 0.4-4.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCT-option). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT).

Radiotherapy staffing in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: The ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) project has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The first milestone was to assess the availability of radiotherapy resources within Europe. This paper presents the personnel data collected in the ESTRO HERO database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy staffing (questionnaire items 47-60), analysed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis was conducted between February and July 2014, and is based on validated responses from 24 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. Averages and ranges for personnel numbers per million inhabitants are 12.8 (2.5-30.9) for radiation oncologists, 7.6 (0-19.7) for medical physicists, 3.5 (0-12.6) for dosimetrists, 26.6 (1.9-78) for RTTs and 14.8 (0.4-61.0) for radiotherapy nurses. The combined average for physicists and dosimetrists is 9.8 per million inhabitants and 36.9 for RTT and nurses. Radiation oncologists on average treat 208.9 courses per year (range: 99.9-348.8), physicists and dosimetrists conjointly treat 303.3 courses (range: 85-757.7) and RTT and nurses 76.8 (range: 25.7-156.8). In countries with higher GNI per capita, all personnel categories treat fewer courses per annum than in less affluent countries. This relationship is most evident for RTTs and nurses. Different clusters of countries can be distinguished on the basis of available personnel resources and socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: The average personnel figures in Europe are now consistent with, or even more favourable than the QUARTS recommendations, probably reflecting a combination of better availability as such, in parallel with the current use of more complex treatments than a decade ago. A considerable variation in available personnel and delivered courses per year however persists among the highest and lowest staffing levels. This not only reflects the variation in cancer incidence and socio-economic determinants, but also the stage in technology adoption along with treatment complexity and the different professional roles and responsibilities within each country. Our data underpin the need for accurate prediction models and long-term education and training programmes.

Guidelines for equipment and staffing of radiotherapy facilities in the European countries: final results of the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In planning to meet evidence based needs for radiotherapy, guidelines for the provision of capital and human resources are central if access, quality and safety are not to be compromised. A component of the ESTRO-HERO (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology) project is to document the current availability and content of guidelines for radiotherapy in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84 part questionnaire was distributed to the European countries through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies with 30 items relating to the availability of guidelines for equipment and staffing and selected operational issues. Twenty-nine countries provided full or partial evaluable responses. RESULTS: The availability of guidelines across Europe is far from uniform. The metrics used for capital and human resources are variable. There seem to have been no major changes in the availability or specifics of guidelines over the ten-year period since the QUARTS study with the exception of the recent expansion of RTT staffing models. Where comparison is possible it appears that staffing for radiation oncologists, medical physicists and particularly RTTs tend to exceed guidelines suggesting developments in clinical radiotherapy are moving faster than guideline updating. CONCLUSION: The efficient provision of safe, high quality radiotherapy services would benefit from the availability of well-structured guidelines for capital and human resources, based on agreed upon metrics, which could be linked to detailed estimates of need.