Plasma miRNAs as biomarkers for endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION: Can plasma miRNAs be used for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis in infertile women? SUMMARY ANSWER: miRNA-based diagnostic models for endometriosis failed the test of independent validation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Circulating miRNAs have been described to be differentially expressed in patients with endometriosis compared with women without endometriosis, suggesting that they could be used for the non-invasive diagnosis of endometriosis. However, these studies have shown limited consistency or conflicting results, and no miRNA-based diagnostic test has been validated in an independent patient cohort. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed genome-wide miRNA expression profiling by small RNA sequencing to identify a set of plasma miRNAs with discriminative potential between patients with and without endometriosis. Expression of this set of miRNAs was confirmed by RT-qPCR. Diagnostic models were built using multivariate logistic regression with stepwise feature selection. In a final step, the models were tested for validation in an independent patient cohort. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Plasma of all patients was available in the biobank of the Leuven Endometriosis Centre of Excellence. Biomarker discovery and model development were performed in a discovery cohort of 120 patients (controls= 38, endometriosis= 82), and models were tested for validation in an independent cohort of 90 patients (controls= 30, endometriosis= 60). RNA was extracted with the miRNeasy Plasma Kit. Genome-wide miRNA expression analysis was done by small RNA sequencing using the NEBNext small RNA library prep kit and the NextSeq 500 System. cDNA synthesis and qPCR were performed using the Qiagen miScript technology. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We identified a set of 42 miRNAs with discriminative power between patients with and without endometriosis based on genome-wide miRNA expression profiling. Expression of 41 miRNAs was confirmed by RT-qPCR, and 3 diagnostic models were built. Only the model for minimal-mild endometriosis (Model 2: hsa-miR-125b-5p, hsa-miR-28-5p and hsa-miR-29a-3p) had diagnostic power above chance performance in the independent validation (AUC= 60%) with an acceptable sensitivity (78%) but poor specificity (37%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The diagnostic models were built and tested for validation in two patient cohorts from a single tertiary endometriosis centre. Further validation tests in large cohorts