Run M2 NSCLC Challenge Assessment (SAMPLE 2) 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 2: WALLACE, Roger (optional) Roger Wallace is a 69 year old male. He is currently on azathioprine for systemic lupus recently complicated by pericarditis. He has approximately 10 pack year smoking history and quit 10 years ago. While being followed by his rheumatologist and cardiologist, he was found to have a new left lung mass with associated pleural effusion. Thoracentesis reveals malignant cells. Biopsy of the lung mass shows a poorly-differentiated carcinoma, positive for keratin markers and negative for TTF1, p40 among others. Medical oncology is requesting full NSCLC biomarker testing on the lung biopsy. Please provide as soon as possible. DOB: Jul 20 1954 MRN: 31296 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 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: MET Exon 14 skipping, PD-L1 variable 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 the following? Yes No Sensitivity to MET inhibitor therapy Yes No Correlation between fusion results (RNA) with mutation results (DNA) [Dependent on testing strategy/panel used] Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) Save draft