Table 1.
Diagnostic performances of the different methods to detect TERTp mutations.
| Method | Population (Number of Patients) | Reference Method | Accuracy | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular biology techniques on the tumor | ||||
| NGS targeted panel | 18 glioblastomas | - | 7 TERTp mut/18 (38.9%) | [32] |
| NGS targeted panel | 47 glioblastomas | Sanger sequencing | 30 TERTp mut/47 (64%) Se 99%, Spe 100% |
[34] |
| NGS targeted panel | 121 gliomas | Sanger sequencing | 66 TERTp mut/121 Se 100%, Spe 100% |
[36] |
| Nanopore | 16 glioblastomas | NGS | Se 100%, Spe 60% | [37] |
| Droplet digital PCR | 52 grade IV gliomas | Sanger sequencing | Se 100%, Spe 100% | [31] |
| Molecular biology techniques on the periphery of the tumor | ||||
| Snapshot | 22 gliomas | NGS | Se 87.5%, Spe 100% | [39] |
| MRI parameters | ||||
| Support Vector Machine | 112 gliomas | Tumor sequencing | Se 85.7%, Spe 54.8% | [40] |
| Spectroscopy | 112 gliomas | Tumor sequencing | Se 83.3%, Spe 95.2% | [41] |
| Dynamic susceptibility contrast- and dynamic contrast-enhanced- MRI | 60 gliomas | Tumor sequencing | Se 56–84%, Spe 53.6%–83.3% | [42] |