One Minute Poster Pitches Archive

UK & Ireland Prostate Brachytherapy Conference 2024

Abstract number 9 

Environmental Sustainability in Brachytherapy: A UK study 

Gerry Lowe, Amanda Tate, Priya Narga-Martin
Mount Vernon Cancer Centre 

Purpose: Following a poster presented at the 2021 UK & Ireland Prostate Brachytherapy UsersGroup meeting an informal working group was established to estimate the carbon footprint of brachytherapy. 

Methods: Twelve centres participated; data have so far been received from eight. Four clinical brachytherapy pathways were considered, with a suggested sample size of ten patients per centre per pathway: – Prostate LDR; – Prostate HDR; – Cervix HDR; – Vaginal vault HDR. Categories of data collected: – Power consumption by equipment, theatres, and wards; – Anaesthetic gases and equipment; – Consumables; – Waste processing, and packaging used to deliver sources; – ‘Embedded carbon’ in sources; – Patient travel. 

Results: Major carbon footprint factors per patient include time spent on wards and in theatre (52 and 34 kgCO2e respectively) and patient travel (38 kgCO2e). Other power consumption contributes 13 kgCO2e, and single-centre data showed a small contribution of 4 kgCO2e from consumables. Differences between procedures arise due to different levels of inpatient care: multi-fraction cervix treatments require theatre and ward time which increases their footprint compared to outpatient vault treatments (191 vs. 42 kgCO2e). There are significant uncertainties in these figures, and differences between centres. The power consumption contribution (theatre, wards and equipment) for LDR prostate at centre 1, with ward stays of 12-24 hours, is 54 kgCO2e, compared to 35 kgCO2e for centre 2 where patients are admitted as day cases. 

Conclusion: The total footprint is similar to that measured for external beam treatments by a UK study [1]; however, whereas for EBRT it is patient travel that dominates, in the case of inpatient brachytherapy, theatre and ward times are also significant. This study is a baseline against which further work can be done to refine the data, and consider how best to reduce the carbon emitted in future. 

References: 

1. Chuter, R., et al, ‘Towards estimating the carbon footprint of external beam radiotherapy’, Physica Medica 112 (August 2023) 102652