|
Case No.
|
Total
|
---|
|
S39
|
B17
|
C22
|
I87
|
S50
| |
---|
Method 1
| | | | | | |
Node metastasis
|
-
|
+ (1)
|
-
|
-
|
+ (2)
|
3/20
|
Liver metastasis
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0/20
|
Peritoneal dissemination
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0/20
|
Early or advanced
|
+ (1)
|
-
|
-
|
+ (1)
|
-
|
2/20
|
Histologic type*
|
+ (1)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
+ (2)
|
3/20
|
Method 2
| | | | | | |
Node metastasis
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
+ (1)
|
-
|
1/20
|
Liver metastasis
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0/20
|
Peritoneal dissemination
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
0/20
|
Histologic type*
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
+ (1)
|
-
|
1/20
|
- The difference in diagnosis was rare between four samples from the same tumor. In particular, there were no BAC clones affecting the estimation of liver metastasis and peritoneal dissemination in all of the samples.
- -; Absence of intratumoral genomic heterogeneity affecting diagnosis
- +; Presence of intratumoral genomic heterogeneity affecting diagnosis (the number of clones different from others)
- * Intestinal or diffuse type