You have accessJournal of UrologyPenile & Testicular Cancer I (MP01)1 May 2024MP01-08 MicroRNA-371a-3p (miR371a) SERUM LEVELS TO PREDICT THE PRESENCE OF METASTATIC LYMPH NODES IN MARKER NEGATIVE CLINICAL STAGE IIA/B SEMINOMA Axel Heidenreich, Anna Thor, Anders Kjellmann, Anna Grenabo Bergdahl, Mette-Pernille Myklebust, Aditya Bragodia, John Laffin, Bendu Konneh, Felix Seelemeyer, and David Pfister Axel HeidenreichAxel Heidenreich , Anna ThorAnna Thor , Anders KjellmannAnders Kjellmann , Anna Grenabo BergdahlAnna Grenabo Bergdahl , Mette-Pernille MyklebustMette-Pernille Myklebust , Aditya BragodiaAditya Bragodia , John LaffinJohn Laffin , Bendu KonnehBendu Konneh , Felix SeelemeyerFelix Seelemeyer , and David PfisterDavid Pfister View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008660.87408.90.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Nerve sparing retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) has emerged as a treatment alternative in marker negative CS IIA/B seminomas. However, about 10-15% of all patients harbour nonmetastatic lymph nodes at time of RPLND so that reliable biomarkers are of importance to stratify treatment. miR371a represents a new biomarker with diagnostic and predictive properties. The aim of our study was to evaluate the predictive accuracy of miR371a to identify metastatic lymph nodes. METHODS: 50 patients with marker negative CS IIA/B seminomas underwent primary RPLND with a modified template dissection. Blood specimens were drawn on the day immediately prior to surgery. For single institution measurements, cubital vein blood was placed on ice and processed within 30 minutes for extraction of miR371a. The extracted miR371a was transcribed into cDNA using cDNA Solution, Reverse Transcriptase and RNase Inhibitor. Subsequently, this cDNA was amplified. Using qPCR, the miR371a was quantified using Roche Lightcycler 480 II. The median Cp (CP=Crossing Points) of the triplicates is calculated and converted into a RQ value (RQ=Relative Frequency), which indicates whether the sample is positive or negative. RESULTS: Median age was 35.3 (21-52) years. At time of RPLND, 38 (76%) and 12 (24%) pts presented in CS IIA and CS IIB, resp. Median number of dissected lymph nodes was 27.3 (14-63), median number of positive nodes was 1.2 (1-4). A total of 4 (8%) and 46 (92%) pts had benign lymph node pathology or seminomatous metastases, resp. The median size of positive lymph nodes was 24.2 (2.5-45) mm. miR371 was negative in 4/4 (100%) pts with negative nodes and it was positive in 38/46 (82.6%) metastatic lymph nodes. Sensitivity and specificity, positive and negative predictive values varied between single and multicenter approaches (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: miR371 has a high predictive value to identify CS IIA/B seminomas with lymph node metastases and it might be used to stratify active treatment versus active surveillance. However, negative miR371 findings are highly reliable to identify pN0 disease but false negative findings might also be due to logistic challenges. These findings have to be kept in mind when using miR371 in the decision making process for treatment strategies. Source of Funding: None © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e4 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Axel Heidenreich More articles by this author Anna Thor More articles by this author Anders Kjellmann More articles by this author Anna Grenabo Bergdahl More articles by this author Mette-Pernille Myklebust More articles by this author Aditya Bragodia More articles by this author John Laffin More articles by this author Bendu Konneh More articles by this author Felix Seelemeyer More articles by this author David Pfister More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heidenreich et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from The Journal of Urology