Review Article
How the COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted Oncological Molecular Diagnosis: A Picture from a National Reference Center for Molecular Pathology
Table 1
Comparison between discrete variables evaluated in both cohorts.
| Evaluated variables | Type | 2019 () | 2019 (%) | 2020 () | 2020 (%) | value |
| Institution | PNHS type I | 99 | 29.03% | 102 | 35.92% | 0.0153 | PNHS type II | 111 | 32.55% | 66 | 23.24% | PNHS type III | 91 | 26.69% | 68 | 23.94% | PL | 40 | 11.73% | 48 | 16.90% | Region | North | 165 | 48.39% | 129 | 45.42% | 0.0146 | Center | 39 | 11.44% | 45 | 15.85% | LTV | 122 | 35.78% | 108 | 38.03% | Algarve | 15 | 4.40% | 2 | 0.70% | Sample | LB | 36 | 10.56% | 13 | 4.58% | 0.0067 | TCB | 305 | 89.44% | 271 | 95.42% | Molecular test | NGS | 164 | 48.09% | 147 | 51.76% | <0.0001 | Sanger | 29 | 8.50% | 38 | 13.38% | Idylla | 145 | 42.52% | 80 | 28.17% | PCR-based capillary electrophoresis | 2 | 0.59% | 17 | 5.99% | Digital PCR | 1 | 0.29% | 2 | 0.70% |
|
|