Table 1.

Concordance Between RET-FISH and Other Molecular Techniques Performed on Lung Cancer Reported in the Literature: Cases Initially Screened by FISH

Study	Number of RET-FISH+ Samples Reported	Number of RET-FISH+ Samples Compared With Other Techniques	Number and % of Concordant Samples Between FISH and Other Techniques	Comments
Kim et al.,32 2018	51	51	3 (5.9) [NanoString]
Radonic et al.,30 2021	48	30	9 (30) [RNA-seq]
Tsuta et al.,27 2014	50	29	16 (55.2) [RT-PCR]	RT-PCR analysis only when RNA was available (29) and 14 KIF5B::RET fusions and 2 CCDC6::RET fusions were confirmed.
Takeuchi et al.,26 2012	22	22	12 (54.5) [RT-PCR]
Tan et al.,29 2020	30	9	6 (66.7) [NGS]	2 equivocal FISH samples (10-15% positive cells) were also positive by RNA-seq.
Baker et al.,31 2021	8	8	5 (62.5) [RNA-seq]
Go et al.,33 2013	3	3	3 (100) [PCR] 3 (100%) [WTS]
Rogers et al.,28 2017	1	1	0 (0) [NanoString] 1 (100) [Agena] 0 (0) [RNA-seq]	The only RET-FISH-positive case in this study was also the most degraded sample, failing to be detected by NanoString and ThermoFisher RNA-seq, and was borderline positive with Agena allele-specific assay.
Piton et al.,34 2018	1	1	1 (100) [ligation-dependent RT-PCR]	FISH-positive cases with rearranged nuclei between 15 and 20% were excluded because it was a high risk of a false-positive result, as the authors did not want to test LD-RT-PCR on these unsure 'positive' cases.

FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; LD-RT-PCR, ligation-dependent reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; NGS, next generation sequencing; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; RNA-seq, RNA-sequencing; RT-PCR, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction; WTS, whole transcriptome sequencing.