Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of the clinical performance of NGS and single testing platforms for detecting genomic alterations; taking single test as the reference method

From: Biomarker testing for advanced lung cancer by next-generation sequencing; a valid method to achieve a comprehensive glimpse at mutational landscape

 NGSSingle testSensitivity (%)Specificity (%)PPV (%)NPV (%)Accuracy (%)Cohen’s kappa (κ)
(+)(−)
EGFR mutation (n = 75) Multiplex Real-Time PCR      
*(+)16088.89 (65.29–98.62)100 (93.73–100)10096.61 (88.53–99.06)97.33 (90.70–99.68)0.92 (0.82–1.00)
(−)257     Almost perfect agreement
ALK1 rearrangement (n = 49) IHC D5F3 assay      
(+)4080 (28.36–99.49)100 (91.96–100)10097.78 (88.4–99.61)97.96 (89.15–99.95)0.88 (0.64–1.00)
(−)144     Almost perfect agreement
ROS1 fusion (n = 43) FISH      
(+)0197.67 (87.71–99.94)10097.67 (87.71–99.94)
(−)042      
c-MET amplification (n = 62) FISH      
(+)00100 (93.84–100)93.5593.55 (84.30–98.21)
(−)458      
  1. Please Note: 95% CI values have been bracketed
  2. PPV: Positive Predictive Value NPV: Negative Predictive Value
  3. *The four uncommon mutations in EGFR have been excluded from the comparison
\