Run M2 NSCLC Challenge Assessment (SAMPLE 1) 1. Start 2. 901 3. 902 4. 903 5. 904 6. 905 7. 906 8. 907 9. 908 10. 909 11. 910 12. 911 13. 912 14. 913 15. End Spam protection, skip this field Assessor Name: Your name will be kept confidential to participants and any feedback you provide as an assessor will be forwarded anonymously. The following sets of questions pertain to Sample 1: CHONG, Terrence (optional) 44 year old male presenting to medical attention with diffusely metastatic disease, bone, liver and lymph nodes. He has no significant past medical history and has not used tobacco regularly. A supraclavicular lymph node biopsy shows adenocarcinoma, positive for TTF1, in keeping with metastatic non-small cell lung carcinoma. Block from this biopsy has been referred to your lab for complete biomarker testing. DOB: Aug 8 1979 MRN: 32411 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on "resistance" to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: EGFR Exon 20 Insertion, PD-L1 negative 2. Were the results received with enough time to deliver biomarker-informed treatment without interrupting patient flow? (i.e. would optimal treatment have been delayed at all due to the biomarker results?) Yes No. An explanation below: 3. What treatment would you prescribe to the patient in the vignette, based on the biomarker results provided by this lab? 4. Were the results easy to interpret? Yes No. An explanation below: 5. Did this participating lab comment on “resistance” to 1st and 3rd generation EGFR inhibitors? Yes No. An explanation below: 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) Save draft