Table 1 Comparison of FISH and IHC results in 616 cases

0

1+

2+

3+

Visual 1

9 (4.9%)

9 (4.9%)

30 (16.2%)

137 (74.1%)

Visual 2

19 (10.3%)

12 (6.5%)

29 (15.7%)

125 (67.6%)

Machine 1*

0 (.0%)

36 (19.5%)

79 (42.7%)

70 (37.8%)

Machine 2*

0 (.0%)

41 (22.2%)

137 (74.1%)

7 (3.8%)

FISH-non-amplified (n = 394)

0

1+

2+

3+

Visual 1

293 (74.4%)

78 (19.8%)

15 (3.8%)

8 (2.0%)

Visual 2

315 (79.9%)

59 (15.0%)

13 (3.3%)

7 (1.8%)

Machine 1*

1 (0.3%)

372 (94.4%)

17 (4.3%)

4 (1.0%)

Machine 2*

4 (1.0%)

375 (95.2%)

15 (3.8%)

0 (.0%)

FISH-equivocal (n = 37)

0

1+

2+

3+

Visual 1

14 (37.8%)

12 (32.4%)

7 (18.9%)

4 (10.8%)

Visual 2

18 (48.6%)

8 (21.6%)

6 (16.2%)

5 (13.5%)

Machine 1*

0 (.0%)

25 (67.6%)

9 (24.3%)

3 (8.1%)

Machine 2*

2 (5.4%)

23 (62.2%)

11 (29.7%)

1 (2.7%)