3597 - The Effect of Radiation Techniques on Carbon Footprint Reduction
Presenter(s)
Y. H. Chuang1, Y. F. Lu1, P. Hou1,2, P. W. Shueng1,3, C. X. Hsu1,2, D. Y. Kuo1, and C. H. Hsieh1,3; 1Division of Radiation Oncology, Department of Radiology, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan, 2Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Yuan Ze University, Taoyuan 320, Taiwan, 3School of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan
Purpose/Objective(s): The purpose of this study is to quantify and compare the energy consumption and other treatment-related carbon emissions of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) and conventional RT (CRT) in patients with different cancers.
Materials/Methods: From January to September 2024, 286 patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, bone or brain metastasis treated with helical tomotherapy using SBRT or CRT techniques were enrolled retrospectively. Patients with brain or bone metastasis treated by RT were defined as palliative groups. Others belong to the curative group. Patient age, gender, cancer stage, PTV volume, dose and fractionation were collected simultaneously. The beam-on time and power ratings were used to calculate accelerator energy consumption. Carbon emission from different vehicles was obtained separately using travel distance per treatment course and carbon emission data from the Taiwan Ministry of Environment.
Results: A total of 233 patients were included in the final analysis, 53 of which excluded due to incomplete treatment course or patient information. 137 patients belonged to the curative group and 96 belonged to the palliative group. Carbon emission from machine consumption was considerably greater than from transportation. In the curative group, prostate SBRT demonstrated lowest carbon emission (31.56 kg CO2; IQR 25.24-37.92) while hypo-fractioned treatment for breast cancer resulted in highest carbon emission (91.77 kg CO2; IQR 77.64-100.07) from treatment course. In the palliative group, lowest and highest carbon emission developed from treatment in average were bone SRS/SRT (13.05 kg CO2; IQR 7.53-17.31) and conventional treatment for brain (40.71 kg CO2; IQR 39.54-42.39), respectively. SBRT demonstrated a significant reduction in total carbon footprints compared to CRT in all treatment categories (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: SBRT offers not only clinical benefits but also reduction in carbon emission during radiotherapy, especially in machine energy consumption. These results support the potential of SBRT to align modern practices with global sustainability.
Abstract 3597 - Table 1| Breast | Prostate | Brain | Bone | |||||||||
| SBRT (n=14) | Conventional (n=72) | p value | SBRT (n=34) | Conventional (n=17) | p value | SRS/SRT (n=48) | Conventional (n=9) | p value | SRS/SRT (n=24) | Conventional (n=15) | p value | |
| Car | 10.27 ± 11.79 | 25.09 ± 28.88 | 0.065 | 11.86 ± 16.67 | 21.40 ± 15.80 | 0.069 | 2.01 ± 1.79 | 6.62 ± 1.91 | <0.001* | 3.27 ± 4.36 | 6.09 ± 3.54 | 0.047* |
| Motorcycle | 7.03 ± 8.03 | 18.30 ± 20.32 | 0.047* | 8.28 ± 11.99 | 17.46 ± 13.10 | 0.022* | 1.49 ± 1.37 | 5.15 ± 1.54 | <0.001* | 2.24 ± 2.83 | 5.06 ± 3.21 | 0.008* |
| Public transport | 3.57 ± 4.10 | 8.73 ± 10.04 | 0.065 | 4.13 ± 5.80 | 7.45 ± 5.50 | 0.069 | 0.70 ± 0.62 | 2.30 ± 0.66 | <0.001* | 1.14 ± 1.52 | 2.12 ± 1.23 | 0.047* |
| CE from machine energy per course (kgCO2e, mean) | 36.35 ± 5.83 | 91.77 ± 18.36 | <0.001* | 31.56 ± 7.54 | 74.69 ± 20.01 | <0.001* | 14.04 ± 9.06 | 40.71 ± 2.55 | <0.001* | 13.05 ± 6.88 | 31.53 ± 13.58 | <0.001* |