Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Radiation Oncologists and Interprofessional Radiation Therapy Care Teams: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Strategies for Effective Patient Education Delivery.

PURPOSE: Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P < .01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P < .01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.

Assessing the Landscape in Medical Education Literature in Medical Oncology: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Medical oncology and medical education (ME) have both expanded exponentially over the past 50 years; thus, it is important to understand the current status of postgraduate medical oncology education and develop ways to advance this field. This study undertakes a scoping review of ME literature in medical oncology to inform future scholarship in this area. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and Web of Science were searched to find peer-reviewed English language articles on postgraduate ME in medical oncology published from 2009 to 2020. Established scoping review methodologies were used in study design; articles were classified by specialty, learner training level, region of authorship, institution type, year of publication, journal type, study methodology, and research topic. Curriculum intervention, scholarship, and domain(s) of physician competency were also assessed. The results were interpreted using descriptive statistics and collated using predetermined conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: A total of 2,959 references were initially found across four databases. After title and abstract screening, 305 articles remained; after full-text review, 144 articles were included in final analysis. Postgraduate medical oncology education research is increasing, with the majority of articles published in North America. Quantitative studies were most common, primarily survey approaches. For physician competencies, professionalism and medical expertise comprised the large majority of article focuses, whereas very few articles addressed leadership or health advocacy. Curriculum development, professional development, and communication skills were dominant research themes while no articles discussed teacher training. CONCLUSION: Although areas such as professionalism and communication skills are well-studied, medical oncology ME research is lacking in leadership, health advocacy, and teacher training. This study provides valuable guidance for future ME research in medical oncology and establishes a benchmark to examine changes in educational scholarship over time.

Adapting a Medical School Cancer Research Education Program to the Virtual Environment: a Mixed-Methods Study.

With cancer incidence increasing worldwide, physicians with cancer research training are needed. The Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program was developed to train medical students in cancer research while exposing them to the breadth of clinical oncology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study investigates positive and negative aspects of the varying educational formats. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the educational formats. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from participants to assess their understanding of cancer as a clinical and research discipline. Structured interviews were conducted across all three cohorts, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes. A total of 37 students participated in SOAR and completed surveys (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, and 2021 n = 12), and 18 interviews were conducted. Understanding of oncology as a clinical (p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline (p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no difference between each cohort's improvement in research understanding (p = 0.6). There was no difference between each cohort's understanding of oncology-related disciplines as both clinical and research disciplines (p > 0.1 for all). Thematic analysis demonstrated that hybrid and in-person formats were favored over a completely virtual one. Our findings demonstrate that a medical student cancer research education program is effective using in-person or hybrid formats for research education, although virtual experiences may be suboptimal to learning about clinical oncology.

Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE): Clinician perceived benefits of a graphic narrative discussion guide.

PURPOSE: Many current radiotherapy patient education materials are not patient-centered. An interprofessional team developed Communicating the Gynecologic Brachytherapy Experience (CoGBE), a graphic narrative discussion guide for cylinder, intracavitary, and interstitial high-dose-rate (HDR) gynecologic brachytherapy. This study assesses perceived clinical benefits, usability, and anxiety-reduction of CoGBE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was sent to members of the American Brachytherapy Society. Participants were assigned to assess one of the three modality-specific CoGBE versions using a modified Systems Usability Scale (SUS), modified state-trait anxiety index (mSTAI), and Likert-type questions. Free response data was analyzed using modified grounded theory. RESULTS: Median modified SUS score was 76.3 (interquartile range [IQR], 71.3-82.5) and there were no significant differences between guide types. Median mSTAI was 40 (IQR, 40-43.3) for all guides collectively. The cylinder guide had a significantly higher median mSTAI than the intracavitary and interstitial guides (41.6 vs. 40.0 and 40.0; p = 0.04) suggesting the cylinder guide may have less impact on reducing anxiety. Most respondents reported that CoGBE was helpful (72%), would improve patient understanding (77%) and consultation memorability (82%), and was at least moderately likely to be incorporated into their practice (80%). Qualitative analysis themes included personalization and relatability (positive); generalizability (negative); illustrations (both). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians rate CoGBE as usable with potential to reduce patient anxiety, especially with more invasive treatment modalities including intracavitary or interstitial high-dose-rate. CoGBE has the potential to improve patient-clinician communication for a wider range of patients due to its accessible, adaptable, and patient-centered design.

Spanish Adaptation and Evaluation of Clinical Discussion Guides: Communicating the External Beam Radiotherapy Experience (CEBRE) en Español.

PURPOSE: Cancer is the leading cause of death for the Hispanic/Latinx United States (US) community, which comprises 64% of the US population with limited English proficiency. Despite the common use of radiation therapy for cancer treatment, there is a dearth of radiation therapy educational materials-at appropriate reading levels-available in Spanish. To address the gap in patient-centered educational resources for communicating with Spanish-speaking patients about radiation therapy, we sought to linguistically and culturally adapt the Communicating the External Beam Radiotherapy Experience (CEBRE) clinical discussion guide series into Spanish. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January to December 2021, we developed and applied a stepwise methodology for Spanish adaptation of the discussion guides involving (1) professional translation; (2) interprofessional review for linguistic and cultural appropriateness and medical accuracy; (3) design review; and (4) evaluation for readability, understandability, and actionability using validated tools. We applied 4 indices for readability evaluation: Gilliam-Peña-Mountain, Läsbarhetsindex, Rate Index, and the Spanish Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Two trained reviewers assessed understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. RESULTS: After 2 revision rounds, 4 CEBRE en español discussion guides were produced through an interprofessional, iterative translation and linguistic/cultural adaptation process. Readability scores across the 4 guides ranged from 4.3 to 7.3 grade-level equivalents, thereby meeting the American Medical Association's 8th-grade standard. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool analysis yielded near-perfect scores along understandability and actionability domains. CONCLUSIONS: The stepwise linguistic/cultural adaptation process yielded a patient-centered guide that is appropriately readable, understandable, and actionable for Spanish-speaking patients receiving radiation therapy in the US. Future work should include an external evaluation of CEBRE en español by clinicians and patients. The methodology described can be applied to adapting resources for patient-centered communication in other fields of medicine and into other languages as part of an interprofessional approach to delivering equitable health care for all.

Development of a United States Radiation Oncology Curricular Framework: A Stakeholder Delphi Consensus.

PURPOSE: A United States (US) radiation oncology curriculum, developed using best practices for curriculum inquiry, is needed to guide residency education and qualifying examinations. Competency-based training, including entrustable professional activities (EPAs), provides an outcomes-based approach to modern graduate medical education. This study aimed to define US radiation oncology EPAs and curricular content domains using a deliberative process with input from multiple stakeholder groups. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Core Curriculum Project Leadership Committee developed initial content domains and EPAs. Following recruitment of stakeholders, a Delphi process was used to achieve consensus. In the first round, content domains and EPAs were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion, clarity, time allocation (content domains), and level of training (EPAs). Participants submitted additional content domains and EPAs for consideration. Any content domains or EPAs 1 standard deviation below the median for inclusion and exclusion underwent Leadership Committee review. All participants completing the first Delphi round were invited to the second round. Percent curriculum time allocated for content domains and a single subdomain were finalized. New EPAs or EPAs undergoing major revisions were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 186 participants representing diverse stakeholder groups participated. One hundred fourteen completed the first Delphi round (61.3%). Of 114 invited, 77 participants completed the second round of the Delphi process (67.5%). Overall, 6 of 9 content domains met consensus, 1 content domain was removed, and 2 content domains were combined. Four subdomains of a single content domain were reviewed and met consensus. Consensus on percent time allocated per content domain and subdomain was reached. Of 55 initial EPAs, 52 final EPAs met consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberative curriculum inquiry was successfully used to develop a consensus on US radiation oncology content domains and EPAs. These data can guide the allocation of educational time in training programs, help inform weighting for qualifying examinations, and help guide clinical training and resident assessment.

Exploring the Perceived Educational Impact of COVID-19 on Postgraduate Training in Oncology.

This study sought to report the degree to which postgraduate trainees in radiation oncology perceive their education has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional online survey was administered from June to July 2020 to trainee members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) (n = 203). Thirty-four trainees responded with a 17% response rate. Just under half of participants indicated that COVID-19 had a negative/very negative impact on training (n = 15; 46%). The majority agreed/strongly agreed that they feared family/loved ones would contract COVID-19 (n = 29, 88%), felt socially isolated from friends and family because of COVID-19 (n = 23, 70%), and had difficulty concentrating on tasks because of concerns about COVID-19 (n = 17, 52%). Changes that had a negative/very negative impact on learning included limitations to travel and networking (n = 31; 91%) and limited patient contact (n = 19; 58%). Virtual follow-ups (n = 25: 76%) and in-patient care activities (n = 12; 36%) increased. Electives were cancelled in province (n = 10; 30%), out-of-province (n = 16; 49%), and internationally (n = 15; 46%). Teaching from staff was moderately reduced to completely suppressed (n = 23, 70%) and teaching to medical students was moderately reduced to completely suppressed (n = 27, 82%). Significant changes to radiation oncology training were wrought by the pandemic, and roughly half of trainees perceive that these changes had a negative impact on training. Innovations in training delivery are needed to adapt to these new changes.

A Call for Reform: Variability and Insufficiency in Radiation Oncology Resident Didactics-a Brief Report and National Survey of Program Directors.

An informal needs assessment and lack of a national standardized curriculum suggest that there is tremendous variability in the formal teaching of radiation oncology resident throughout the USA. The goal of this study was to characterize formal radiation oncology resident education, in order to identify knowledge gaps and areas for improvement. We developed a 14-item survey consisting of the following domains: program characteristics, teaching faculty, formal teaching time, instructional approaches for formal teaching, curricular topics, and satisfaction with didactics. All 91 accredited US-based radiation oncology program directors received an invitation to complete the survey anonymously by email. Twenty-four (26% response rate) program directors responded. Programs used a variety of instructional methods; all programs reported using lecture-based teaching and only a minority using simulation (38%) or flipped classroom techniques (17%). Other than PowerPoint, the most common electronic resource utilized was quizzing/polling (67%), webinar (33%), and econtour.org (13%). The lack of a national, standardized, radiation oncology residency didactic curriculum promotes variability and insufficiency in resident training. Themes for improvement were diversity in didactic topics, incorporation of evidence-based teaching practices, increased faculty involvement, and sharing of resources across programs. Development of a national curriculum and increased electronic resource sharing may help address some of these areas of improvement.

Attitudes and access to resources and strategies to improve quality of radiotherapy among US radiation oncologists: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess contouring-related practices among US radiation oncologists and explore how access to and use of resources and quality improvement strategies vary based on individual- and organization-level factors. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design. Surveys were emailed to a random 10% sample of practicing US radiation oncologists. Participating physicians were invited to a semi-structured interview. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a multivariable regression model were used to evaluate associations. Interview data were coded using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Survey overall response rate was 24%, and subsequent completion rate was 97%. Contouring-related questions arise in ≥50% of clinical cases among 73% of respondents. Resources accessed first include published atlases (75%) followed by consulting another radiation oncologist (60%). Generalists access consensus guidelines more often than disease-site specialists (P = 0.04), while eContour.org is more often used by generalists (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.8) and younger physicians (OR 1.33 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). Common physician-reported barriers to optimizing contour quality are time constraints (58%) and lack of access to disease-site specialists (21%). Forty percent (40%, n = 14) of physicians without access to disease-site specialists indicated it could facilitate the adoption of new treatments. Almost all (97%) respondents have formal peer review, but only 43% have contour-specific review, which is more common in academic centres (P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Potential opportunities to improve radiation contour quality include improved access to disease-site specialists and contour-specific peer review. Physician time must be considered when designing new strategies.

Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Annual Spring Symposium: Initial Impact and Feedback.

The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) is an international collaborative network of radiation oncology (RO) professionals with the goal of improving RO education. This report summarizes the first two ROECSG annual symposia including an overview of presentations and analysis of participant feedback. One-day symposia were held in June 2018 and May 2019. Programs included oral and poster presentations, RO education leadership perspectives, and keynote addresses. Post-symposia surveys were collected. Research presentations were recorded and made available online. The 2018 symposium was had 36 attendees from 25 institutions in three countries. The 2019 symposium had 76 individuals from 41 institutions in five countries. Attendees represented diverse backgrounds including attending physicians (46%), residents (13%), medical students (14%), physicists (2%), nurses (1%), and program coordinators (1%). Fifty-five oral presentations were given with 53 released online. Ninety percent of attendees rated the symposium as improving their knowledge of RO educational scholarship, 98% felt the symposium provided the opportunity to receive feedback on RO education scholarship, and 99% felt that the symposium fostered the development of collaborative RO education projects. ROECSG was rated higher than professional organizations in fostering educational scholarship (p<0.001). All attendees felt that the symposium produced new RO education scholarship ideas and provided unique networking opportunities. The first two ROECSG symposia drew a diverse population of attendees and provided unique opportunities for presentation of RO education scholarship. Future ROECSG symposia will be designed to enhance opportunities to present RO education scholarship and to facilitate networking.

Local Control and Use of External Beam Parametrial Boost in the Era of Image-Guided Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Historically, external beam parametrial boost (EBPB) has been used in locally advanced cervical cancers to supplement radiation dose. However, it has become controversial in the era of image-guided brachytherapy. Modern 3D imaging and brachytherapy techniques have improved delineation and coverage of tumor. Outcomes with and without parametrial boost were analyzed. METHODS: Women with cervical cancer involving the parametria (clinically or radiographically) diagnosed between 2001 and 2017 were identified. Clinicopathologic and treatment features, survival and patterns of failure data were collected. Univariate and multivariable data analysis was performed to evaluate association of these variables, including parametrial boost, with local failure-free survival and overall survival. Competing risks analysis was performed for cumulative incidence of local failure, with death and other failures treated as competing events. RESULTS: A total of 100 women were identified (median follow-up 26.8 mo). Forty-one (41%) received EBPB; these patients were less likely to have received magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, interstitial, or high-dose rate brachytherapy. Magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, dose rate, and treatment era were highly correlated (Cramer's V: 0.43 to 0.68, P<0.01). Two-year overall survival and local failure were 78% and 12% for the entire cohort. While the use of EBPB was not associated with any outcome on multivariable analysis, treatment year after 2009 was highly associated with improved outcomes in all models. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, omission of EBPB did not compromise local control or survival in the modern era, supporting a decreased need for standardized use of parametrial boost.

Readability of Patient Education Materials From High-Impact Medical Journals: A 20-Year Analysis.

Comprehensive patient education is necessary for shared decision-making. While patient-provider conversations primarily drive patient education, patients also use published materials to enhance their understanding. In this investigation, we evaluated the readability of 2585 patient education materials published in high-impact medical journals from 1998 to 2018 and compared our findings to readability recommendations from national groups. For all materials, mean readability grade levels ranged from 11.2 to 13.8 by various metrics. Fifty-four (2.1%) materials met the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade reading level, and 215 (8.2%) met the National Institutes of Health recommendation of eighth grade level. When stratified by journal and material type, general medical education materials from Annals of Internal Medicine were the most readable (P < .001), with 79.8% meeting the eighth grade level. Readability did not differ significantly over time. Efforts to standardize publication practice with the incorporation of readability evaluation during the review process may improve patients' understanding of their disease processes and treatment options.

Goals of care discussions: perceptions of radiation and medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range]. RESULTS: There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.

Effect of Terminology Used to Describe Medical Oncologists on Perceptions of Radiation Oncologists as Equal Partners in Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to assess the terminology used to describe the different oncologic subspecialties at academic institutions in the United States and determine whether the use of the term "oncologist" to describe a medical oncologist (MO) may affect the multidisciplinary care of patients with cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was sent to chairs and program directors at all 94 academic radiation oncology departments in the United States. Questions assessed the terminology used to describe the oncologic subspecialties in their hospital's electronic medical record system, their views on how that terminology may affect referral patterns, and the perception of radiation oncologists' (ROs) role in patient care. RESULTS: Responses were received from 40 institutions (response rate, 42.6%). Fifteen percent of hospital electronic medical record systems used the term "oncology" instead of "medical oncology" (51%) or "hematology/oncology" (28%). Describing MOs simply as "oncologists" was thought to more likely affect patient views of MOs as the primary decision maker in their cancer care (mean Likert-type rating, 3.43) than it would affect the probability of up-front multidisciplinary referrals (mean Likert-type rating, 2.69). Patient perceptions of ROs as equal partners in care were thought to be less associated with the terminology used to describe MOs (mean Likert-type rating, 3.15) than the behavior of ROs in patient care (mean Likert-type rating, 4.65; P < .001), the attitude of MOs toward ROs (mean Likert-type rating, 4.59; P < .001), and the involvement of ROs in the initial new patient visits rather than a downstream referral (mean Likert-type rating, 3.95; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The terminology used to describe MOs was thought to affect patient and provider perceptions of RO, but less so than other patient-provider interaction factors.

A prospective clinical and transcriptomic feasibility study of oral-only hormonal therapy with radiation for unfavorable prostate cancer in men 70 years of age and older or with comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiation therapy (RT). It was hypothesized that replacing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists with a 5-α-reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) would improve hormonal health-related quality of life (HRQOL) without differentially suppressing androgen-responsive (AR) gene expression. METHODS: Patients with localized unfavorable-risk PCa, aged ≥70 years or Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥2 were treated with oral ADT (oADT), consisting of 4 months of bicalutamide, a 5-ARI, and RT at 78 Gy. The primary end point was Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite HRQOL at 6 months ≤30%, and improvement compared with a synchronous standard of care (SOC) cohort receiving 4 months of bicalutamide and long-term LHRH agonist with RT. RNA sequencing was performed from matched pre-/post-ADT prostate tumor biopsies in a subset of men. Differential gene and pathway expressional changes were examined using gene set enrichment. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, 40 and 30 men were enrolled in the oADT and SOC cohorts, respectively. Median follow-up was 40 months. Those with ≤30% decline in hormonal HRQOL at 6 months was 97% (oADT) and 93% (SOC). The average 6-month hormonal decline was 1% (oADT) versus 12% (SOC; P = .04). The 4-year freedom from biochemical failure was 88% (oADT) versus 81% (SOC; P = .48). RNA sequencing (n = 9) showed similar numbers of downregulated and upregulated genes between the treatment groups (fold-change = 2; false-discovery rate-adjusted P ≤ .05). Both treatments comparably decreased the expression of 20 genes in canonical androgen receptor signaling. CONCLUSIONS: For men with PCa undergoing RT, oral versus standard ADT may improve 6-month QOL and appears to have a similar impact on androgen-responsive gene expression.

The use of complementary and integrative therapies as adjunct interventions during radiotherapy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Literature supporting the efficacy of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) alongside radiotherapy is fragmented with varying outcomes and levels of evidence. This review summarizes the available evidence on CIM used with radiotherapy in order to inform clinicians. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified studies on the use of CIM during radiotherapy. Inclusion required the following criteria: the study was interventional, CIM therapy was for human patients with cancer, and CIM therapy was administered concurrently with radiotherapy. Data points of interest were collected from included studies. A subset was identified as high-quality using the Jadad scale. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the association between study results, outcome measured, and type of CIM. RESULTS: Overall, 163 articles met inclusion. Of these, 68 (41.7%) were considered high-quality trials. Articles published per year increased over time (p < 0.01). Frequently identified therapies were biologically based therapies (47.9%), mind-body therapies (23.3%), and alternative medical systems (13.5%). Within the subset of high-quality trials, 60.0% of studies reported a favorable change with CIM while 40.0% reported no change. No studies reported an unfavorable change. Commonly assessed outcome types were patient-reported (41.1%) and provider-reported (21.5%). Rate of favorable change did not differ based on type of CIM (p = 0.90) or outcome measured (p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent CIM may reduce radiotherapy-induced toxicities and improve quality of life, suggesting that physicians should discuss CIM with patients receiving radiotherapy. This review provides a broad overview of investigations on CIM use during radiotherapy and can inform how radiation oncologists advise their patients about CIM.