Search

Background and purpose: The European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology was funded by the EU for a project on recording providing education, and ameliorating the consequences of treatment (REACT). An European audit was carried out as part of which to assess the usefulness of current follow-up practices. Patients and methods: Over a 4-month period in 15 cancer centres in 10 countries, patients attending for routine follow-up completed a questionnaire covering their expectations of and satisfaction with the visit. This was matched with a questionnaire completed by the physician about the content and usefulness of the consultation. The feasibility of a short toxicity scale developed by Dische and Saunders was also investigated. Results: In total, 2303 matched questionnaires were analysed. Forty percent of the patients had symptoms or medical problems related to their disease. In 18% there was a positive finding on clinical examination. In 28% investigations were undertaken part of departmental routine practice. Ten percent of the investigations showed an abnormal result. Ninety nine percent of physicians and 85% of the patients expressed satisfaction. Using the short toxicity scale rates of recording toxicity could be increased from 28 to 93%. Conclusions: There is wide variation in follow-up practices among European centres. There was a low incidence of positive findings clinically or with routine investigations. A simple scale for recording morbidity has proved easy to use by departments, which have not routinely used one of the standard measures. Further work will attempt to produce an European guideline for effective routine follow-up after radiotherapy. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Purpose: To provide a guideline curriculum covering theoretical and practical aspects of education and training for medical physicists in radiotherapy within Europe. Material and methods: Guidelines have been developed for the specialist theoretical knowledge and practical experience required to practice as a medical physicist in radiotherapy. It is assumed that the typical entrant into training will have a good initial degree in the physical sciences, therefore these guidelines also require that and are additional to it. National training programmes of medical physics, radiation physics and radiotherapy physics from a range of European countries and from North America were reviewed by an expert panel set up by the European Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ESTRO) and the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP). A draft document prepared by this group was circulated, via the EFOMP infrastructure, among national professional medical physics societies in Europe for review and comment and was also discussed in an education session in the May 2003 EFOMP scientific meeting in Eindhoven. Results: The resulting guideline curriculum for education and training of medical physicists in radiotherapy within Europe discusses the EFOMP terms, qualified medical physicist (QMP) and specialist medical physicist (SMP), and the group's view of the links to the EU (Directive 97/43) term, medical physics expert (MPE). The minimum level expected in each topic in the theoretical knowledge and practical experience sections is intended to bring trainees up to the requirements of a QMP. The responses from the circulation of the document to national societies and its discussion were either to agree its content, with no changes required, or to suggest changes, which were taken into account after consideration by the expert group. Following this the guidelines have been endorsed by the parent organisations. Conclusions: This new joint ESTRO/EFOMP European g

In the framework of the European Network for Research in Light Ion Hadron Therapy (ENLIGHT), the health economics group develops a methodology for assessing important investment and operating costs of this innovative treatment against its expected benefits. The main task is to estimate the cost per treated patient. The cost analysis is restricted to the therapeutic phase from the hospital point of view. An original methodology for cost assessment per treatment protocol is developed based on standard costs. Costs related to direct medical activity are based on the production process analysis, whereas indirect and non direct medical costs are allocated to each protocol using relevant cost-drivers. The resulting cost model will take into account the specificities of each therapeutic protocol as well as the particularities of each of the European projects.