Disclaimer: Independent educational project. Not affiliated with ZoomRx. Built by Kaushal Khodifad. Data from public sources; figures are estimates.return to portfolio
Disclaimer: Independent educational project. Not affiliated with ZoomRx.

Insights Dashboard

1L EGFR+ NSCLC. Twelve oncologists.

Synthesized themes, decision drivers, brand perceptions, and patient archetypes across all completed interviews. Click See source verbatim on any theme to drill into the respondent quote behind the claim.

○ Illustrative

Illustrative figures - synthetic, not real fieldwork. The numbers and quotes below are sample output that matches the shape the synthesis pipeline produces. Once Supabase is configured and the seed script has run (12 interviews → sagan.sessions / session_synthesis), this view aggregates the real completed sessions and flips to Live data.

12
Interviews completed
18m 24s
Avg duration
14.2
Avg turns / session
Intracranial efficacy
Top driver

Decision Drivers

What actually tips the call.

Brand Perception Matrix

○ Illustrative

Efficacy vs tolerability.

Tolerability ◀───────────▶Efficacy ◀──────▶Osimertinib monon=12Osimertinib + chemo (FLAURA2)n=9Amivantamab + lazertinib (MARIPOSA)n=11

Patient Archetypes

○ Illustrative

Four buckets, four different calls.

Young, fit, asymptomatic

Osimertinib monotherapy

Toxicity tradeoff doesn't justify combo for low-burden disease. Watchful escalation if/when progression.

Heavy CNS burden

MARIPOSA (amivantamab + lazertinib)

Intracranial activity is the discriminating factor - combo data is most compelling here.

Frail, ECOG 2+

Osimertinib monotherapy

Tolerability dominates. Even modest grade 3+ AEs lead to dose holds and discontinuation in this group.

High disease burden, fit

FLAURA2 (osimertinib + chemo)

PFS advantage matters when disease tempo is fast. Patient can tolerate the combo toxicity.

Top Themes

3 patterns. High signal.

10 of 12

CNS efficacy is decisive when present

If they have brain mets, my conversation changes completely. I'm thinking MARIPOSA first now - the intracranial data is hard to argue with.

9 of 12

Toxicity threshold drives combo hesitation

FLAURA2 looks great on paper but in a community setting, the toxicity is real. I've had patients drop chemo within two cycles.

7 of 12

Payer access shapes practice but doesn't dictate

We get FLAURA2 approved most of the time, but the prior auth burden is real. MARIPOSA is harder. Osi mono is easy.

Quote Reel

○ Illustrative

Standouts. In their words.

I look at PFS, OS where available, and intracranial activity. That's the holy trinity.

Dr. PatelDecision drivers

Community oncology is different. We can't push toxicity the way an academic center can.

Dr. RodriguezPractice context

If the patient is asymptomatic with a single lung lesion, I'm not bringing chemo in. Period.

Dr. RodriguezToxicity threshold

MARIPOSA's CNS data made me rethink everything for brain-met patients.

Dr. KimCNS efficacy

We're going to see real-world AEs that look different from the trial. The trial population is fitter.

Dr. PatelTrial data

If a patient says 'I want the strongest option,' we have a longer conversation about what 'strongest' means for THEM.

Dr. KimShared decision

Ask anything

Query across all 12 interviews.

↑ Independent educational project by Kaushal Khodifad. ZoomRx is a real company in the AI-moderated qualitative pharma primary market research space; this design and the underlying prototype were built by Kaushal as a portfolio study. Not affiliated with, endorsed by, or representative of ZoomRx's actual product. Data is from public sources. Figures are estimates.

Return to portfolioOpen the live demo