{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04239401496259352, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014962593516209476, 'mean_word_length': 4.992537313432836, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Author Reply to Chadha KG, et al.

Regarding the letter to the editor, ‘Reviewing ROS1 immunohistochemistry vis‐à‐vis fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in non‐small cell lung cancer’ by Chadha et al.,[1] we are glad to note that the authors concur with our paper[2] and the editorial[3] that immunohistochemistry (IHC) presents a viable, more affordable alternative to FISH for ROS1 screening in non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We are also glad to read that ROS1‐positivity percentage in Chadha et al.’s experience was low, and similar to that of our study, both of which corroborate previous observations of <1% positivity of ROS1 by FISH in Indian patients. It would be useful to know how many of their 130 NSCLC cases tested for ROS1 were adenocarcinomas versus squamous cell carcinomas.