Next-Generation Sequencing and Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization Have Comparable Performance Characteristics in the Analysis of Pancreaticobiliary Brushings for Malignancy Jonathan C. Dudley, Zongli Zheng, Thomas McDonald, Long P. Le, Dora Dias-Santagata, Darrell Borger, Julie Batten, Kathy Vernovsky, Brenda Sweeney, Ronald N. Arpin, William R. Brugge, David G. Forcione, Martha B. Pitman, A. John Iafrate The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 124-130 (January 2016) DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.08.002 Copyright © 2016 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions
Figure 1 Representative example of next-generation sequencing pile-ups showing KRAS (A) and TP53 (B) mutations from patient 6 (Supplemental Table S1) with a history of resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma and hepatic metastases on a follow-up magnetic resonance image. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 2016 18, 124-130DOI: (10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.08.002) Copyright © 2016 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions
Supplemental Figure S1 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves comparing next-generation sequencing (NGS), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), and cytology (Cyto), alone and in combination. The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 2016 18, 124-130DOI: (10.1016/j.jmoldx.2015.08.002) Copyright © 2016 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology Terms and Conditions