Table 2.

PCR group—methods

Study (year)	Method	Number of specimens	Clone VE1 vendor	Dilution/incubation	Interpretation	Note
Abd Elmageed (2017)	rt-PCR	130	Spring Bioscience	1:100/60 min	Capper et al. method
Chen (2018)	Quantitative rt-PCR	40	GBI Biotechnology	NA/NA	Capper et al. method
de Biase (2014)	ASLNA-qPCR	20	Spring Bioscience	NA/NA	NA
Jung (2015)	PCR	467	Spring Bioscience	1:50/NA	No or weak staining considered negative. Moderate or strong staining considered positive
Kim (2014)	PNA-clamp	91	Spring Bioscience	1:300/15 min	Allred
Kim (2014)	rt-PCR	91	Spring Bioscience	1:300/15 min	Allred
Martinuzzi (2016)	PNA-clamp	85	Spring Bioscience	1:50/NA	Capper et al. method
McKelvie (2013)	C-PCR	71	Spring Bioscience	NA/12 min	Unequivocal diffuse cytoplasmic staining in > 85% of tumor cells considered positive	SNaPshot used in 9 discordant cases. 8/9 VE1+/C-PCR- were confirmed positive by SNaPshot, the last case VE1+, C-PCR- and SNaPshot-
Na (2015)	rt-PCR	104	Spring Bioscience	1:100/NA	Intensity 0–3+; strong (3+) when staining of tumor cells was stronger than or equivalent to surrounding follicular colloid
Qiu (2015)	rt-PCR	127	Ventana	NA/16 min	NA
Routhier (2013)	SNaPshot	15	Spring Bioscience	1:100/NA	Capper et al. method	Study included 4 PTC mets to LNs and 4 Follicular carcinomas. These were removed from the data set
Sun (2015)	rt-PCR	556	Ventana	NA/NA	Capper et al. method
Szymonek (2017)	rt-PCR #1	137	Ventana	1:100/16 min	Intensity 0–3+; Positive if staining was ≥ 25% of tumor cells
	rt-PCR #2	137	Ventana	1:100/32 min	Same as above
Zhang (2018)	ARMS-PCR	132	Ventana	NA/32 min	Intensity 0–3+; weak (1+), requiring 10× or greater objective to observe staining, 2+ moderate, easy to recognize "yellow" staining w/10×. 3+ strong, “brown” with 4×	Sanger sequencing used in discrepant cases
Zhao (2019)	PCR	185	Ventana	NA/16 min	Intensity 0–3+; positive 1–3+. No or only slight staining, negative