Table 1.
Comparison of different methods for ALK testing in tissue sample.
| Parameters | FISH | IHC | qRT-PCR | NGS | NanoString |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample criteria | |||||
| RNA input required | NA | NA | + | +++ | ++ |
| RNA quality | ++ | +++ | + | + | ++ |
| % of tumor cells | + | +++ | ++ | + | + |
| Sensitivity | +++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Specificity | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | ++ |
| Costs | |||||
| Reagents | ++ | +++ | ++ | + | +++ |
| Device/hardware/software | ++ | +++ | ++ | + | + |
| Resolution | |||||
| Quantitative precision | + | + | ++ | +++ | +++ |
| Accuracy at low concentrations | NA | NA | ++ | + | +++ |
| Variants detection | NA | NA | ++ | +++ | ++ |
| TAT | |||||
| Hands on time | + | +++ | ++ | + | +++ |
| Results analysis | + | +++ | ++ | + | ++ |
| Interpretation | + | +++ | ++ | ++ | ++ |
| Throughput | + | ++ | ++ | +++ | +++ |
TAT: turnaround time; NA: not applicable; +: worse approach; ++: intermediate option; +++: best approach.