Table 2 Comparison of HRM and pyrosequencing results in 61 CRC samples
| Â | Run 1 | Run 2 | Summary | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Summary of Results | ||||||
HRM | n | % | n | % | n | % |
 Number of samples | 61 | 100.0 | 7 | 100.0 (11.5) | 61 | 100.0 |
 Analysis passed | 50 | 82.0 | 7 | 100.0 | 57 | 93.4 |
  WT (total) | 32 | 64.0 | 6 | 85.7 | 38 | 66.7 |
  WT (skewed HRM curve) | 24 | 75.0 | 2 | 33.3 | 26 | 68.4 |
  Mutant (total) | 18 | 36.0 | 1 | 14.3 | 19 | 33.3 |
  Mutant (skewed HRM curve) | 0 |  | 0 |  | 0 |  |
 Analysis failed | 11 | 18.0 | 0 |  |  |  |
Pyrosequencing | n | % | n | % | n | % |
 Number of samples | 61 | 100.0 | 1 | 100.0 (1.6) | 61 | 100.0 |
 Analysis passed | 60 | 98.4 | 1 | 100.0 | 61 | 100.0 |
  WT (total) | 41 | 68.3 | 0 |  | 41 | 67.2 |
  WT (call: WT) | 35 | 58.3 |  |  | 35 |  |
  WT (call: potential low level mutation) | 6 | 10.0 | 0 |  | 6 |  |
  Mutant | 19 | 31.7 | 1 | 100.0 | 20 | 32.8 |
 Analysis failed | 1 | 1.6 | 0 |  |  |  |
Concordance of Results | HRM | Pyrosequencing | ||||
| Â | n | % | n | % | ||
 Number of samples | 57 | 100 | 57 | 100 | ||
 WT (total) | 38 | 66.7 | 37 | 64.9 | ||
  WT (call: WT) |  |  | 33 | 57.9 | ||
  WT (call: potential low level mutation) |  |  | 4 | 7.0 | ||
 Mutant | 19 | 33.3 | 20 | 35.1 | ||
 Concordant | 56 | 98.2 |  |  | ||
 Discordant | 1 | 1.8 |  |  | ||
 Correctly classified WT | 37 | 97.4 |  |  | ||
 Incorrectly classified WT | 1 | 2.6 |  |  | ||
 Correctly classified mutant | 19 | 100 |  |  | ||
 Incorrectly classified mutant | 0 | 0 |  |  | ||