Table 2.
Comparison of HRM and pyrosequencing results in 61 CRC samples
| Run 1 | Run 2 | Summary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary of Results | ||||||
| HRM | n | % | n | % | n | % |
| Number of samples | 61 | 100.0 | 7 | 100.0 (11.5) | 61 | 100.0 |
| Analysis passed | 50 | 82.0 | 7 | 100.0 | 57 | 93.4 |
| WT (total) | 32 | 64.0 | 6 | 85.7 | 38 | 66.7 |
| WT (skewed HRM curve) | 24 | 75.0 | 2 | 33.3 | 26 | 68.4 |
| Mutant (total) | 18 | 36.0 | 1 | 14.3 | 19 | 33.3 |
| Mutant (skewed HRM curve) | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Analysis failed | 11 | 18.0 | 0 | |||
| Pyrosequencing | n | % | n | % | n | % |
| Number of samples | 61 | 100.0 | 1 | 100.0 (1.6) | 61 | 100.0 |
| Analysis passed | 60 | 98.4 | 1 | 100.0 | 61 | 100.0 |
| WT (total) | 41 | 68.3 | 0 | 41 | 67.2 | |
| WT (call: WT) | 35 | 58.3 | 35 | |||
| WT (call: potential low level mutation) | 6 | 10.0 | 0 | 6 | ||
| Mutant | 19 | 31.7 | 1 | 100.0 | 20 | 32.8 |
| Analysis failed | 1 | 1.6 | 0 | |||
| Concordance of Results | HRM | Pyrosequencing | ||||
| n | % | n | % | |||
| Number of samples | 57 | 100 | 57 | 100 | ||
| WT (total) | 38 | 66.7 | 37 | 64.9 | ||
| WT (call: WT) | 33 | 57.9 | ||||
| WT (call: potential low level mutation) | 4 | 7.0 | ||||
| Mutant | 19 | 33.3 | 20 | 35.1 | ||
| Concordant | 56 | 98.2 | ||||
| Discordant | 1 | 1.8 | ||||
| Correctly classified WT | 37 | 97.4 | ||||
| Incorrectly classified WT | 1 | 2.6 | ||||
| Correctly classified mutant | 19 | 100 | ||||
| Incorrectly classified mutant | 0 | 0 | ||||