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.

Purpose/objectives: Three‐dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature.Materials/methods: A search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns.Results: One hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1–42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P < 0.0001). While outcomes were heterogeneous, most studies reported successful implementation of accurate and cost‐effective 3D printing methods.Conclusions: Three‐dimensional printing is rapidly growing in radiation oncology and has been implemented effectively in a diverse array of applications. Although the number of 3D printing publications has steadily risen, the majority of current reports are preclinical in nature and the few clinical studies that do exist report on small sample sizes. Further dissemination of ongoing investigations describing the clinical application of developed 3D printing technologies in larger cohorts is warranted.

Appropriate informed consent procedures are crucial to preservation of patient autonomy and facilitation of shared decision making. According to the National Academy of Medicine, “regulations that govern the attainment of informed consent…are crucial to ensuring that medical care and research are conducted in an ethical manner and with the utmost respect for individual preferences and dignity.”¹ However, obtaining truly informed consent is a challenge in many medical settings, including cancer treatment, where the landscape of therapeutic options is increasingly complex and shifting. Informed consent for radiotherapy may be particularly difficult given its technical and abstract nature.² Despite the associated risks, radiotherapy is received by about half of patients with cancer,^3,4 and studies have shown that patients desire extensive information about their treatment and the associated adverse effects.⁵ Recent research suggests that nearly half of patients initiating radiotherapy have heard frightening stories, heightening the need for optimal communication during the consent process.⁶

(1) Background: Radiotherapy (RT) is a central component for the treatment of many head and neck cancers. In this systematic review of the literature, we aimed to characterize and quantify the published evidence on RT-related hypothyroidism, including estimated incidence, clinical risk factors, and dosimetric parameters that may be used to guide clinical decision making. Furthermore, we aimed to identify potential areas of improvement in the prevention and clinical management of RT-induced hypothyroidism, including the role of modern advanced therapeutic techniques. (2) Methods: We conducted a systemic review of the literature in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to identify original research articles describing the incidence, mechanism, dosimetry, treatment, or prevention of radiation-related hypothyroidism for adults receiving RT for the treatment of head and neck cancers. The snowball method was used to identify additional articles. For identified articles, we tabulated several datapoints, including publication date, patient sample size, estimated hypothyroidism incidence, cancer site/type, follow-up period, radiation modality and technique, use of multimodality therapy, method of thyroid function evaluation, and proposed dosimetric predictors of hypothyroidism. (3) Results: One hundred and eleven articles met inclusion criteria, reflecting a range of head and neck cancer subtypes. There was a large variation in the estimated incidence of RT-related hypothyroidism, with a median estimate of 36% (range 3% to 79%). Reported incidence increased in later publication dates, which was likely related to improved screening and longer follow up. There were a wide variety of predictive metrics used to identify patients at high risk of hypothyroidism, the most common of which were volumetric and mean dosimetrics related to the thyroid gland (Vxx%, Dmean). More recently, there has been increasing evidence to suggest that the thyroid gland volume itself and the volume of the thyroid gland spared from high-dose radiation (VSxx) may better predict thyroid function after RT. There were no identified studies investigating the role of advanced radiotherapeutic techniques such as MRI-guided RT or particle therapy to decrease RT-related hypothyroidism. Conclusions: Hypothyroidism is a common toxicity resulting from therapeutic radiation for head and neck cancer with recent estimates suggesting 40–50% of patients may experience hypothyroidism after treatment. Dosimetric predictive models are increasingly able to accurately identify patients at risk of hypothyroidism, especially those utilizing thyroid VS metrics. Further investigation regarding the potential for advanced radiotherapeutic therapies to decrease RT-induced thyroid dysfunction is needed.