|
Comparison of an in vitro Diagnostic Next-Generation Sequencing Assay with Sanger Sequencing for HIV-1 Genotypic Resistance Testing.
|
2018
|
Tzou PL, et al. (2018)
|
Sensitivity of this method is insufficient for identifying low frequency mutations.
|
|
A simple and robust real-time qPCR method for the detection of PIK3CA mutations.
|
2018
|
Alvarez-Garcia V; et al... (2018)
|
Low sensitivity and the high cost.
|
|
Droplet Digital PCR for Mutation Detection in Formalin-Fixed, Paraffin-Embedded Melanoma Tissues: A Comparison with Sanger Sequencing and Pyrosequencing.
|
2018
|
McEvoy AC; et al. (2018)
|
Failure to detect mutations in genes and specific samples.
|
|
Implementation of next generation sequencing technology for somatic mutation detection in routine laboratory practice.
|
2018
|
Giardina T; et al. (2018)
|
It presents greater difficulties in detecting materials that were not microdissected.
|
|
Non-reproducible sequence artifacts in FFPE tissue: an experience report.
|
2017
|
Ofner R, et al. (2017)
|
Low reproducibility in FFPE.
|
|
Clinical validation of the 50 gene AmpliSeq Cancer Panel V2 for use on a next generation sequencing platform using formalin fixed, paraffin embedded and fine needle aspiration tumour specimens.
|
2017
|
Rathi V; et al. (2017)
|
Disadvantages in relation to new technologies such as NGS
|
|
Locked nucleic acid probe enhances Sanger sequencing sensitivity and improves diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution melting-based KRAS mutational analysis.
|
2016
|
Ishige T; et al (2016)
|
Sensitivity of this method is insufficient for identifying low frequency mutations.
|
|
Clinical Applications of Next-Generation Sequencing in Cancer Diagnosis
|
2016
|
Sabour L; et al. (2017)
|
Laborious, time consuming and difficulty in distinguishing between normal and altered genotypes.
|
|
A combination of immunohistochemistry and molecular approaches improves highly sensitive detection of BRAF mutations in papillary thyroid cancer.
|
2016
|
Martinuzzi C; et al. (2016)
|
Low sensitivity
|
