Table 3. Comparison of EGFR T790M detection platforms in plasma.

S.No	Method	Sample	EGFR T790M detection rate %		Study Group
			Treatment Naive/Pre-TKI	Post-TKI
1	BEAMing	Plasma N = 44	4.8	43.5	Taniguchi et al. [106]
2	Scorpion ARMS	Plasma N = 26	34.8	64	Maheswaran et al. [109]
3	ARMS	Plasma N = 135	5.8	31.1	Wang Z et al. [89]
	Digital PCR		25.2	43.0
4	Mutant-enriched PCR	Plasma N = 33	NA	36.4	He et al. [74]
	Direct Sequencing		NA	6.1
5	Cobas (Roche)	Plasma N = 23	0	39	Sorensen et al. [99]
6	ddPCR	Plasma N = 49	-	28.6	Lee et al. [104]
7	SABER	Plasma N = 75	-	28	Sakai et al. [120]
8	ddPCR	Plasma N = 12	-	41.7	Isobe K et al. [92]
9	Mutation-biased PCR	Plasma N = 58	-	40	Sueoka-Aragane N et al. [112]
10	Mutation-biased PCR	Plasma N = 19	-	53	Nakamura T et al. [78]
	PNA-LNA PCR		-	15.7
	Cycleave PCR		-	26.3
	ASO-PCR		-	31.5
	Direct sequencing		-	31.5
11	Cobas (Roche)	Plasma N = 15	0	33.3	Marchetti A et al. [100]
	NGS (Roche)		0	33.3
12	Cobas (Roche)	Plasma N = 238	0.8	2.01	Mok T et al. [88]
13	NGS (Illumina) Hi Seq	Plasma N = 45	-	42.2	Jin Y et al. [114]
14	NGS (MiSeq)	Plasma N = 15	-	60	Paweletz et al. [95]
15	Ion Torrent PGM NGS	Plasma N = 190		16.8	Uchida J et al. [121]

‘-‘ :Not reported.