Cross institutional comparison of the miR-371a-3p assay in pre-surgical germ cell tumor (GCT) patients.

A Adam Levin (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) S Samuel A. Funt (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) A Andrea Knezevic (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) B Brandon Williams A Alisa Valentino (1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Myeloma Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States) L Lindsay Frazier (Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, MA) S Sarah Murray (University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA) A Anna Lee J Jahwa Hossain (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) C Christina Jamieson (UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, CA, 92093) J Jane Smitham (University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA) K Kshitij Margaret Pandit (UCSD Health, La Jolla, CA) J Joel Sheinfeld (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) F Fei Ye R Richard Matulewicz (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY) D Darren R. Feldman (Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY) A Aditya Bagrodia (UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, CA, 92093)

Abstract

621 Background: miR-371a-3p (miR371) is a promising biomarker in GCTs. Diagnostic parameters of miR371 in the literature utilize different laboratory techniques, testing protocol, standards, and thresholds, potentially limiting cross-study comparison and generalized adoption. Establishing assay concordance and standardization is important before implementing the assay in clinical practice. Methods: The primary objective was to assess agreement between paired miR371 test results from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) and University of California San Diego (UCSD) assays, which differ in technique, testing protocol, analytical thresholds, and cutoff criteria, among chemotherapy naïve patients prior to orchiectomy or RPLND surgery. All samples were analyzed in CLIA-certified labs at both centers. An a piori sample size of 56 paired samples was determined to achieve 91% power to differentiate between 75% unacceptable agreement (null) versus 90% acceptable agreement (alternative) using a one-sided exact test with alpha 0.05. A minimum concordance of 48 of 56 paired test results was required to reject the null hypothesis of unacceptable agreement. Secondary objectives were to compare and quantify variation between paired Ct values and to assess assay performance characteristics in detecting active disease (defined as presence of non-teratomatous GCT [ntGCT] at surgery). Samples were randomly selected from those available at each institution, stratified to achieve approximately equal numbers of samples by site (MSK/UCSD), disease status (active/not active), and clinical setting (pre-orchiectomy/pre-RPLND). Results: Samples were categorized by clinical setting (pre-orchiectomy: n=27, pre-RPLND: n=29) and disease status (active: n=31, not active: n=25) and compared by institution. Assay agreement was 87.5% (95% CI: 75.9%, 94.8%), and the Spearman correlation coefficient between the two assays was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.90). Forty nine of 56 samples demonstrated concordance allowing rejection of the null hypothesis. Both assays exhibited strong performance characteristics (Table). Conclusions: The primary objective of this cross-laboratory comparison was achieved, demonstrating concordance between the MSK and UCSD miR371 assays. Further cross-institutional comparisons in defined clinical settings will facilitate collaboration and widespread clinical adoption of the miR371 test. Additional clinical data will be presented. MSK ntGCT+ ntGCT- Total UCSD ntGCT+ ntGCT- Total miR371+ 29 3 32 miR371+ 30 3 33 miR371- 2 22 24 miR371- 1 22 23 Total 31 25 56 Total 31 25 56 Sensitivity 94 Sensitivity 97 Specificity 88 Specificity 88 PPV 91 PPV 91 NPV 92 NPV 96 AUC 92 AUC 98

Article Details

Volume / Issue Vol. 44, Issue 7_suppl
Published March 01, 2026
Pages 621-621
ISSN 0732-183X
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Journal Info

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

ISSN: 0732-183X Health Sciences

Authors (17)

A

Adam Levin

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

S

Samuel A. Funt

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

A

Andrea Knezevic

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

B

Brandon Williams

A

Alisa Valentino

1Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Myeloma Service, Department of Medicine, New York, United States

L

Lindsay Frazier

Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, MA

S

Sarah Murray

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA

A

Anna Lee

J

Jahwa Hossain

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

C

Christina Jamieson

UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, CA, 92093

J

Jane Smitham

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA

K

Kshitij Margaret Pandit

UCSD Health, La Jolla, CA

J

Joel Sheinfeld

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

F

Fei Ye

R

Richard Matulewicz

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY

D

Darren R. Feldman

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY

A

Aditya Bagrodia

UC San Diego Health, La Jolla, CA, 92093