Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Direct Power Consumption of Linear Accelerator-Based External Beam Radiation Therapy

Carbon footprints in the urologic field: From diagnosis to surgery

Climate change and its effects on society represent an increasingly critical concern. The healthcare industry contributes substantially to carbon emissions and bears responsibility for managing its environmental impact. This review examines recent progress, challenges, and future prospects in reducing the carbon footprint of diagnostic urology without compromising patient care, with particular emphasis on imaging. We analyze the environmental effects of urological procedures and devices, along with practices that can minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Promoting sustainability in healthcare requires a comprehensive approach from manufacturing to disposal, including examination of sterilization-related carbon footprints. This work aims to analyze existing literature on urological carbon footprints, focusing on processes and practices within the field.

What is the carbon footprint of academic clinical trials? A study of hotspots in 10 trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are fundamental to healthcare, however, they also contribute to anthropogenic climate change. Following previous work to develop and test a method and guidance to calculate the carbon footprint of clinical trials, we have now applied the guidance to 10 further UK and international, academically sponsored clinical trials to continue the identification of hotspots and opportunities for lower carbon trial design.

METHODS

10 collaborating clinical trial units (CTUs) self-identified and a trial was selected from their portfolio to represent a variety of designs, health areas and interventions. Trial activity data was collated by trial teams across 10 modules spanning trial setup through to closure, then multiplied by emission factors provided in the guidance to calculate the carbon footprint. Feedback was collected from trial teams on the process, experience and ease of use of the guidance.

RESULTS

We footprinted 10 trials: 6 investigational medicinal product trials, 1 nutritional, 1 surgical, 1 health surveillance and one complex intervention trial. Six of these were completed and four ongoing (two in follow-up and two recruiting). The carbon footprint of the 10 trials ranged from 16 to 765 tonnes CO2e. Common hotspots were identified as CTU emissions, trial-specific patient assessments and trial team meetings and travel. Hotspots for specific trial designs were also identified. The time taken to collate activity data and complete carbon calculations ranged from 5 to 60 hours. The draft guidance was updated to include new activities identified from the 10 trials and in response to user feedback.

DISCUSSION

There are opportunities to reduce the impact of trials across all modules, particularly trial-specific meetings and travel, patient assessments and laboratory practice. A trial's carbon footprint should be considered at the design stage, but work is required to make this common place.

Sustainability in radiation oncology: opportunities for enhancing patient care and reducing CO2 emissions in breast cancer radiotherapy at selected German centers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Radiotherapy often entails a substantial travel burden for patients accessing radiation oncology centers. The total travel distance for such treatments is primarily influenced by two factors: fractionation schedules and the distances traveled. Specific data on these aspects are not well documented in Germany. This study aims to quantify the travel distances for routine breast cancer patients of five radiation oncology centers located in metropolitan, urban, and rural areas of Germany and to record the CO2 emissions resulting from travel.

METHODS

We analyzed the geographic data of breast cancer patients attending their radiotherapy treatments and calculated travelling distances using Google Maps. Carbon dioxide emissions were estimated assuming a standard 40-miles-per-gallon petrol car emitting 0.168 kg of CO2 per kilometer.

RESULT

Addresses of 4198 breast cancer patients treated between 2018 and 2022 were analyzed. Our sample traveled an average of 37.2 km (minimum average: 14.2 km, maximum average: 58.3 km) for each radiation fraction. This yielded an estimated total of 6.2 kg of CO2 emissions per visit, resulting in 156.2 kg of CO2 emissions when assuming 25 visits (planning, treatment, and follow-up).

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights the environmental consequences associated with patient commutes for external-beam radiotherapy, indicating that reducing the number of treatment fractions can notably decrease CO2 emissions. Despite certain assumptions such as the mode of transport and possible inaccuracies in patient addresses, optimizing fractionation schedules not only reduces travel requirements but also achieves greater CO2 reductions while keeping improved patient outcomes as the main focus.

Facing the climate change: Is radiotherapy as green as we would like? A systematic review

PURPOSE

To focus on the ecological footprint of radiotherapy (RT), on opportunities for sustainable practices, on future research directions.

METHODS

Different databases were interrogated using the following terms: Carbon Footprint, Sustainab*, Carbon Dioxide, Radiotherapy, and relative synonyms.

RESULTS

931 records were retrieved; 15 reports were included in the review. Eight main thematic areas have been identified. Nine research works analyzed the environmental impact of photon-based external beam RT. Particle therapy was the subject of one work. Other thematic areas were brachytherapy, intra-operative RT, telemedicine, travel-related issues, and the impact of COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates the strong interest in identifying novel strategies for a more environmentally friendly RT and serves as a clarion call to unveil the environmental impact of carbon footprints entwined with radiation therapy. Future research should address current gaps to guide the transition towards greener practices, reducing the environmental footprint and maintaining high-quality care.

The role of planetary health in urologic oncology

INTRODUCTION

Climate change and global warming are an omnipresent topic in our daily lives. Planetary health and oncology represent two critical domains within the broader spectrum of healthcare, each addressing distinct yet interconnected aspects of human well-being. We are encouraged to do our part in saving our planet. This should include the decisions we make in our professional life, especially in uro-oncology, as the healthcare sector significantly contributes to environmental pollution.

AREAS COVERED

There are many aspects that can be addressed in the healthcare sector in general, as there are structural problems in terms of energy consumption, water waste, therapeutic techniques, transportation and drug manufacturing, as well as in uro-oncology specific areas. For example, the use of different surgical techniques, forms of anesthesia and the use of disposable or reusable instruments, each has a different impact on our environment. The literature search was carried out using PubMed, a medical database.

EXPERT OPINION

We are used to making decisions based on the best outcome for patients without considering the impact that each decision can have on the environment. In the present article, we outline options and choices for a more climate-friendly approach in urologic oncology.

Quantifying the carbon footprint of clinical trials: guidance development and case studies

BACKGROUND

The urgency of the climate crisis requires attention from biomedical research, not least clinical trials which can involve significant greenhouse gas emissions. The Low Carbon Clinical Trials Working Group set out a strategy to reduce the emissions of clinical trials, starting with the development of a method to measure their carbon footprint (CO2e).

METHODS

As a first step, we developed a process map defining clinical trial core activities. Corresponding emission factors were sourced to convert activity data into greenhouse gas emissions. The subsequent method was applied to two Cancer Research UK (CRUK)-funded trials (the international randomised sarcoma trial CASPS (ISRCTN63733470) and the UK cohort-based breast cancer trial PRIMETIME (ISRCTN41579286)). A guidance document defining the scope, method and assumptions was written to allow application to any publicly funded/investigator initiated clinical trial.

RESULTS

Trial specific activities over and above routine care were grouped into 10 modules covering trial set up, conduct and closure. We identified emission factors for all trial activities within both trials and used them to estimate their total carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of CASPS, an international phase 2 trial of an investigational medicinal product with 47 participants, was 72 tonnes CO2e, largely attributable to clinical trials unit emissions and staff travel. PRIMETIME, a UK-based phase 3 non-investigational medicinal product trial with 1962 patients, produced 89 tonnes CO2e, largely attributable to trial-specific in-person participant assessments.

CONCLUSION

We have developed a method and guidance that trialists can use to determine the carbon footprint of clinical trials. The guidance can be used to identify carbon hotspots where alternative approaches to trial design and conduct could reduce a trial footprint, and where methodology research is required to investigate the potential impact of interventions taken to reduce carbon emissions. We will continue to refine the guidance to increase the potential application and improve usability.