Back

Bridging and analytical validation of the Prosigna(R) Breast Risk of Recurrence Test as a whole-transcriptome NGS lab developed test

Zhang, D.; Wang, Y.; Sager, L.; Koenigsberg, R.; Birari, M.; Hakansson, A.; Fogarty, E.; Reeves, J. W.; Artieri, C.; Lofaro, L.; Russnes, H. G.; Ohnstad, H. O.; Naume, B.; Febbo, P. G.; Marcom, P. K.; Gole, J.

2026-06-25 oncology
10.64898/2026.06.23.26355479 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The Prosigna Breast Risk of Recurrence test is based on the PAM50 classifier and was originally validated as an in vitro diagnostic (IVD) test on the Dx enabled nCounter(R) Analysis System. The Prosigna test is intended for early-stage, hormone receptor+ (HR+) breast cancer and provides the risk of recurrence (ROR) score (0-100), intrinsic subtype (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched, and Basal-like), and the 10-year probability of distant recurrence. We describe the performance of the Prosigna test as a whole transcriptome RNA sequencing laboratory developed test (LDT) for measuring the Prosigna ROR score and intrinsic subtypes on tissue from surgical resection and core needle biopsy as compared to the Prosigna test on the nCounter system. Methods: We evaluated three separate breast cancer cohorts to 1) bridge the IVD test on the nCounter system and NGS LDT test (n = 245), 2) validate the bridged algorithm on an independent biobank sample set (n = 187), and 3) retrospectively test performance on long-term archival samples from a previous study (n = 109). Results: Bridging analysis showed minimal score variability and robust correlation of Prosigna ROR scoring in surgical resections (SR) (2.459, SD; 0.981, R2) and core needle biopsy (CNB) (2.338, SD; 0.970, R2) samples. In the validation set, the Prosigna NGS LDT ROR scores maintained high correlation to the scores of the nCounter system (SR = 0.968, CNB = 0.966, R2), exhibited minimal score variability (SR = 2.488, CNB = 2.558, SD), and demonstrated high concordance in subtype classifications (SR = 92.3% CNB = 92.8%). Further testing demonstrated comparable performance across tumor fractions, a lower limit of detection (LLOD) of 5 ng, and robustness to exogenous ethanol or genomic DNA contamination. When testing previously extracted RNA from the clinical cohort, we observed high correlation (0.974, R2) and low variance (3.078, SD) of ROR scores with original values on the nCounter system, along with strong risk group (95.4%) and subtype (94.5%) concordance. Conclusions: This study describes the analytical validation of the Prosigna NGS-based LDT measuring the Prosigna ROR score and intrinsic subtypes with robust analytical performance on SR and CNB specimens, providing confidence for clinicians utilizing the NGS-based version of this well-established test.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
26.9%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.8%
3
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
4
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 23%
4.4%
5
Frontiers in Oncology
103 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
Breast Cancer Research
36 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
7
Cancers
213 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
8
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
9
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.1%
10
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.9%
12
Cancer Research Communications
51 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.5%
13
International Journal of Cancer
49 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
14
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
15
Clinical Cancer Research
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
16
Journal of Translational Medicine
57 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
Biology Methods and Protocols
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
JNCI Cancer Spectrum
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
19
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.1%
20
JAMA Network Open
130 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
21
Laboratory Investigation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
22
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.0%
23
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
24
Oncotarget
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
25
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.9%
26
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.9%
27
Science Translational Medicine
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
28
npj Breast Cancer
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
29
Nature Biotechnology
172 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
30
Frontiers in Immunology
638 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%