Run M1 CRC Challenge Assessment (SAMPLE 2) 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. Email Address: Please note that your form can be saved so that you may later return to a partially completed form on the same device should you not be able to complete assessment of all participant results in a single sitting. Please ensure that you have cookies enabled in your browser and all ad-blockers disabled. Some hospital internet connection may block this save feature, so it may be worth it to test it out by completing the first couple of fields, scrolling down to the very bottom of the form to click the save button, closing your browser then re-opening the link. The below set of questions pertain to Sample 2: BUDD, ELENA (optional) Patient EB is a 42 year old female with a history of metastatic colon adenocarcinoma and a lifetime history of ulcerative colitis, sclerosing cholangitis, and uveitis currently on biologic therapy. Her treatments to date include a total proctocolectomy, pulmonary metastectomy, followed by systemic therapy with FOLFOX + bevacizumab, and then second-line FOLFIRI. No previous molecular testing has been performed. An archival block from her pulmonary metastasis has been referred for molecular testing to help inform the next course of therapy. DOB: July 2 1980 MRN: 67890 Lab 902 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 903 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 904 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 905 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 906 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 907 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 908 SAMPLE 2 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 the participant comment on the following? Yes No Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Lab 901 SAMPLE 2 Please note that results were not submitted in time for assessment. Complete the questions below to the best of your abilities. 1. Did the laboratory report the correct biomarker status? Yes N/A No. An explanation below: REFERENCE RESULTS: MSI-High (MMR-deficient), RAS/RAF wild-type 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 N/A 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 N/A No. An explanation below: 5. Did the participant comment on the following? Yes No N/A Hereditary cancer follow-up Yes No N/A Sensitivity to immune checkpoint inhibitors Yes No N/A KRAS, NRAS, BRAF wildtype Yes No N/A Differentiate negative results from a non-diagnostic results Yes No N/A Sensitivity to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy Yes No N/A 6. Additional comments or areas for improvement for the participant: Save draft