Run M2 NSCLC Challenge Assessment (SAMPLE 3) 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 3: GRAY, Diane (optional) Diane Gray is a 73 year old woman with a history of emphysema, severe COPD, and multiple additional medical comorbidities. She has a 40 pack year tobacco history and continues to use tobacco daily. She was recently found to have a 7cm left upper lobe lung mass with mediastinal lymphadenopathy, MRI brain confirms 3 foci of metastatic disease. Biopsy of dominant LUL lesion shows a TTF1-psotive pulmonary adenocarcinoma. The biopsy has been referred to your laboratory for complete biomarker testing. DOB: Jan 12 1950 MRN: 00967 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. 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: KRAS G12A, PD-L1: 1-49% 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. Additional comments or areas for improvement for this participating lab: (optional) Save draft