Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of HRM and pyrosequencing results in 61 CRC samples

From: A rational two-step approach to KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer using high resolution melting analysis and pyrosequencing

  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
  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