Table 1 Comparison of EGFR mutation detection in surgical specimens (tumors) from NSCLC patients using different methods
Sample code | Sex | Stage (AJCC)a | Sanger | EGFR(+)HX103(+) (%)b | EGFR(+) (%)c | HX103(+) (%)d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
#1 | M | I | 19del | + (37.7) | + (72.7) | + (39.7) |
#2 | M | I | – | + (62.2) | + (98.9) | + (58.0) |
#3 | M | II | 19del | – (22.2) | + (93.9) | – (21.9) |
#4 | F | II | L858R | + (56.2) | + (89.9) | + (56.5) |
#5 | M | I | 19del | + (40.6) | + (85.2) | + (39.0) |
#6 | F | I | 19del | + (60.9) | + (90.5) | + (61.8) |
#7 | F | I | L858R | – (1.69) | – (11.2) | – (2.40) |
#8 | M | I | – | – (22.6) | – (21.6) | + (90.6) |
#9 | F | II | –e | + (44.4) | + (59.3) | + (54.6) |
#10 | F | II | – | – (5.35) | – (29.3) | – (13.4) |
#11 | M | II | – | – (2.39) | – (28.3) | – (4.48) |
#12 | F | I | L858R | + (98.7) | + (98.9) | + (99.6) |
#13 | M | III | L858R | + (80.3) | + (98.2) | + (65.7) |
#14 | F | IV | – | – (0.02) | – (14.7) | – (0.50) |
#15 | F | I | – | – (0.03) | – (0.26) | – (9.84) |
#16 | F | II | – | – (0.15) | – (0.78) | – (1.72) |
#17 | F | I | L858R | + (57.8) | + (64.8) | + (74.7) |
#18 | M | I | – | – (1.70) | – (2.52) | – (20.1) |
#19 | F | I | – | – (0.04) | – (5.18) | – (2.48) |
#20 | F | II | L858R | + (39.8) | + (43.2) | + (50.0) |
#21 | F | II | – | – (7.26) | – (13.9) | – (22.9) |
#22 | M | I | L858R | + (59.9) | + (65.1) | + (76.4) |
#23 | F | I | L858R | + (79.8) | + (79.8) | + (97.5) |
