These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

208 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28284760)

  • 1. A peer review process as part of the implementation of clinical pathways in radiation oncology: Does it improve compliance?
    Gebhardt BJ; Heron DE; Beriwal S
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2017; 7(5):332-338. PubMed ID: 28284760
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. How effective are clinical pathways with and without online peer-review? An analysis of bone metastases pathway in a large, integrated National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Network.
    Beriwal S; Rajagopalan MS; Flickinger JC; Rakfal SM; Rodgers E; Heron DE
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2012 Jul; 83(4):1246-51. PubMed ID: 22245207
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Impact of dynamic changes to a bone metastases pathway in a large, integrated, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center network.
    Gebhardt BJ; Rajagopalan MS; Gill BS; Heron DE; Rakfal SM; Flickinger JC; Beriwal S
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2015; 5(6):398-405. PubMed ID: 26432676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Analysis of a real time group consensus peer review process in radiation oncology: an evaluation of effectiveness and feasibility.
    Albert AA; Duggar WN; Bhandari RP; Vengaloor Thomas T; Packianathan S; Allbright RM; Kanakamedala MR; Mehta D; Yang CC; Vijayakumar S
    Radiat Oncol; 2018 Dec; 13(1):239. PubMed ID: 30509283
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Stereotactic body radiation therapy for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer: Executive Summary of an ASTRO Evidence-Based Guideline.
    Videtic GMM; Donington J; Giuliani M; Heinzerling J; Karas TZ; Kelsey CR; Lally BE; Latzka K; Lo SS; Moghanaki D; Movsas B; Rimner A; Roach M; Rodrigues G; Shirvani SM; Simone CB; Timmerman R; Daly ME
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2017; 7(5):295-301. PubMed ID: 28596092
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Practice patterns for peer review in radiation oncology.
    Hoopes DJ; Johnstone PA; Chapin PS; Kabban CM; Lee WR; Chen AB; Fraass BA; Skinner WJ; Marks LB
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2015; 5(1):32-8. PubMed ID: 25413419
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network.
    Ludmir EB; Hoffman KE; Jhingran A; Kouzy R; Ip MP; Sturdevant L; Ning MS; Minsky BD; McAleer MF; Chronowski GM; Arzu IY; Reed VK; Garg AK; Roberts T; Eastwick GA; Olson MR; Selek U; Gabel M; Koong AC; Kupferman ME; Kuban DA
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2024; 14(3):e173-e179. PubMed ID: 38176466
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improving radiation oncology providers' workload and performance: Can simulation-based training help?
    Mazur LM; Mosaly PR; Tracton G; Stiegler MP; Adams RD; Chera BS; Marks LB
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2017; 7(5):e309-e316. PubMed ID: 28462896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Impact of a real-time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department.
    Boxer M; Forstner D; Kneebone A; Delaney G; Koh ES; Fuller M; Kaadan N
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2009 Aug; 53(4):405-11. PubMed ID: 19695048
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?
    Martin-Garcia E; Celada-Álvarez F; Pérez-Calatayud MJ; Rodriguez-Pla M; Prato-Carreño O; Farga-Albiol D; Pons-Llanas O; Roldán-Ortega S; Collado-Ballesteros E; Martinez-Arcelus FJ; Bernisz-Diaz Y; Macias VA; Chimeno J; Gimeno-Olmos J; Lliso F; Carmona V; Ruiz JC; Pérez-Calatayud J; Tormo-Micó A; Conde-Moreno AJ
    Clin Transl Oncol; 2020 Dec; 22(12):2341-2349. PubMed ID: 32557395
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Assessing the Quality of a Radiation Oncology Case-Based, Peer-Review Program in an Integrated Academic and Community Cancer Center Network.
    Thaker NG; Sturdevant L; Jhingran A; Das P; Delclos ME; Gunn GB; McAleer MF; Tereffe W; Choi SL; Frank SJ; Simeone WJ; Martinez W; Hahn SM; Famiglietti R; Kuban DA
    J Oncol Pract; 2016 Apr; 12(4):e476-86. PubMed ID: 26931402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Directly Improving the Quality of Radiation Treatment Through Peer Review: A Cross-sectional Analysis of Cancer Centers Across a Provincial Cancer Program.
    Rouette J; Gutierrez E; O'Donnell J; Reddeman L; Hart M; Foxcroft S; Mitera G; Warde P; Brundage MD; ;
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2017 Jul; 98(3):521-529. PubMed ID: 28258891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Comparison of Onsite Versus Online Chart Reviews as Part of the American College of Radiation Oncology Accreditation Program.
    Hepel JT; Heron DE; Mundt AJ; Yashar C; Feigenberg S; Koltis G; Regine WF; Prasad D; Patel S; Sharma N; Hebert M; Wallis N; Kuettel M
    J Oncol Pract; 2017 May; 13(5):e516-e521. PubMed ID: 28301278
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Group consensus peer review in radiation oncology: commitment to quality.
    Duggar WN; Bhandari R; Yang CC; Vijayakumar S
    Radiat Oncol; 2018 Mar; 13(1):55. PubMed ID: 29587867
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Impact of quality assurance rounds in a Canadian radiation therapy department.
    Lefresne S; Olivotto IA; Joe H; Blood PA; Olson RA
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2013 Mar; 85(3):e117-21. PubMed ID: 23195781
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A Prospective Analysis of Radiation Oncologist Compliance With Early Peer Review Recommendations.
    Walburn T; Wang K; Sud S; Zakrzewski A; Roehm R; Sutton S; Tan X; Adams R; Mazur L; Marks LB; Chera BS
    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys; 2019 Jul; 104(3):494-500. PubMed ID: 30807823
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. A Better Pathway? Building Consensus and Engaging Providers with Feedback to Improve and Standardize Cancer Care.
    Colonna S; Sweetenham J; Burgon TB; Buys SS; Lynch R; Au T; Johnson E; Kubal T; Paculdo D; Acelajado MC; Peabody JW
    Clin Breast Cancer; 2019 Apr; 19(2):e376-e384. PubMed ID: 30711440
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Pilot study of radiation oncology peer review in low middle income country (LMIC) through cloud-based platform.
    Sidhu MS; Gokhroo G; Mulinti S; Pati MB; Murali M; Gupta V; Chaudhari S; Rayn K; Beriwal S
    J Cancer Res Ther; 2024 Jul; 20(5):1591-1594. PubMed ID: 39412924
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Association of preresidency peer-reviewed publications with radiation oncology resident choice of academic versus private practice career.
    McClelland S; Thomas CR; Wilson LD; Holliday EB; Jaboin JJ
    Pract Radiat Oncol; 2017; 7(5):364-367. PubMed ID: 28433523
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Radiation Oncology Quality Assessment Tool: A proposal for a new audit tool in modern radiation oncology.
    Atwell DB; Booth C; Vignarajah DD; Knesl M; Buddle N; Hoozer M; Min M
    J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol; 2019 Oct; 63(5):691-697. PubMed ID: 31376236
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.