Lawrence Marks

Dr. Lawrence Marks

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

36Years (1991-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 March 2010 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LMLawrence Marks
Lawrence Marks
EYEllen D. Yorke
Ellen D. Yorke
AJAndrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson
RHRandall K. Ten Haken
Randall K. Ten Haken
LCLouis S. Constine
Louis S. Constine
JDJoseph O. Deasy
Joseph O. Deasy

1 March 2010 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LMLawrence Marks
Lawrence Marks
SBSoren Bentzen
Soren Bentzen
JDJoseph O. Deasy
Joseph O. Deasy
FKFeng-Ming Kong
Feng-Ming Kong
JBJeffrey D. Bradley
Jeffrey D. Bradley
AJAndrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson

1 July 2013 in Practical Radiation Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
LMLawrence Marks
Lawrence Marks
RARobert D. Adams
Robert D. Adams
TPTodd Pawlicki
Todd Pawlicki
ABAlbert L. Blumberg
Albert L. Blumberg
DHDavid Hoopes
David Hoopes
BFBenedick A. Fraass
Benedick A. Fraass
This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments.

1 March 2010 in International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LMLawrence Marks
Lawrence Marks
RHRandall K. Ten Haken
Randall K. Ten Haken
MMMary K. Martel
Mary K. Martel

1 January 2011 in Practical Radiation Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LMLawrence Marks
Lawrence Marks
MJMarianne Jackson
Marianne Jackson
LXLiyi Xie
Liyi Xie
SCSha X. Chang
Sha X. Chang
KBKatharin Deschesne Burkhardt
Katharin Deschesne Burkhardt
RARobert D. Adams
Robert D. Adams

1 May 2015 in Practical Radiation Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MWMark R. Waddle
Mark R. Waddle
RCRonald C. Chen
Ronald C. Chen
NANabeel H. Arastu
Nabeel H. Arastu
RGRebecca L. Green
Rebecca L. Green
MJMarianne Jackson
Marianne Jackson
LMLawrence Marks
Lawrence Marks