Park 2019.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling	Inclusion/exclusion criteria Inclusion criteria: oligodendroglial tumours (oligodendroglioma or anaplastic oligodendroglioma) with 1p/19q FISH results available Prior testing Presumably histopathological diagnosis, although not explicitly stated. FISH
Patient characteristics and setting	Number of participants/tumours with results for 1p/19q status by ≥ 2 DNA‐based tests: 20 Country: Republic of Korea Population source and setting: Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. January 2015 to December 2016 Age: mean: 51.7 years, standard deviation: 11.6 years Gender: 45% male Karnofsky performance status: NR First diagnosis/recurrent disease: NR
Index tests	2 tests: FISH and NGS FISH Tumour sample type: FFPE Region(s) analysed: 1p36 and 19q13 (Vysis, Downers Grove, Illinois, USA) Cut‐off: combined target‐to‐control signal ratio < 0.75 or cut‐off of a nucleus with a 1 or 0 target signal > 50%. NGS Tumour sample type: FFPE Region(s) analysed: whole genome. 1p and 19q specific: chr1:1‐ 125000000 and chr19:26500001‐59128983 Cut‐off: quote: "The targeted NGS panel did not cover the whole chromosome; therefore, chromosome 1p deletion and 19q deletion were defined as complete segmental loss covered by NGS panel within chr1:1‐ 125000000 and chr19:26500001‐59128983, respectively, based on the hg19 human reference genome. Partial segmental loss within regions was classified as negative". CNV plots obtained using the log 2 ratio were reviewed manually by 2 pathologists. Additional details: "MiSeq (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) with OncoPanel AMCv3 (OP‐AMCv3, developed in‐house by Asan‐CCGD) to include the exons of 199 genes (575,147 bp) and partial introns from 8 genes often rearranged in cancer (209,397 bp) to detect fusion genes and additional small (10,534 bp) specific single nucleotide polymorphism loci for CNV analysis. Overall, the panel covered 823,971 bp".
Target condition and reference standard(s)	Target condition was absolute 1p/19q deletion. FISH used as reference standard in some of our analyses.
Flow and timing	We presumed that all tests were performed on biopsied tumour material collected on 1 occasion.
Comparative
Notes
Methodological quality
Item	Authors' judgement	Risk of bias	Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled?	Unclear
Was a case‐control design avoided?	Yes
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions?	Yes
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?			High
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NanoString)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (aCGH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Unclear
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Unclear risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (G‐banding)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 4))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (SNP array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (with comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR (without comparison to normal DNA))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CISH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MS)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (RFLP)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (PCR‐based LOH)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (NGS or aCGH (or both))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Methylation array)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH)
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified?	Yes
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the other tests being compared?	Yes
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?		Low risk
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 1))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 2))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (FISH (variant 3))
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (Real‐time PCR)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (MLPA)
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (CGH)
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition?	No
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?		High risk
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?			Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard?	Yes
Were all patients included in the analysis?	Yes
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?		Low risk