BACKGROUND: DNA polymerase ɛ (POLE) exonuclease domain mutations characterize a subtype of endometrial cancer (EC) with a markedly increased somatic mutational burden. POLE-mutant tumors were described as a molecular subtype with improved progression-free survival by The Cancer Genome Atlas. In this study, the frequency, spectrum, prognostic significance, and potential clinical application of POLE mutations were investigated in patients with endometrioid EC. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction amplification and Sanger sequencing were used to test for POLE mutations in 544 tumors. Correlations between demographic, survival, clinicopathologic, and molecular features were investigated. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Thirty POLE mutations (5.6%) were identified. Mutations were associated with younger age (<60 years; P=.001). POLE mutations were detected in tumors with microsatellite stability (MSS) and microsatellite instability (MSI) at similar frequencies (5.9% and 5.2%, respectively) and were most common in tumors with MSI that lacked mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) methylation (P<.001). There was no association with progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.22; P=.127). CONCLUSIONS: The discovery that mutations occur with equal frequency in MSS and MSI tumors and are most frequent in MSI tumors lacking MLH1 methylation has implications for Lynch syndrome screening and mutation testing. The current results indicate that POLE mutations are associated with somatic mutation in DNA mismatch repair genes in a subset of tumors. The absence of an association between POLE mutation and progression-free survival indicates that POLE mutation status is unlikely to be a clinically useful prognostic marker. However, POLE testing in MSI ECs could serve as a marker of somatic disease origin. Therefore, POLE tumor testing may be a valuable exclusionary criterion for Lynch syndrome gene testing.
BACKGROUND: DNA polymerase ɛ (POLE) exonuclease domain mutations characterize a subtype of endometrial cancer (EC) with a markedly increased somatic mutational burden. POLE-mutant tumors were described as a molecular subtype with improved progression-free survival by The Cancer Genome Atlas. In this study, the frequency, spectrum, prognostic significance, and potential clinical application of POLE mutations were investigated in patients with endometrioid EC. METHODS: Polymerase chain reaction amplification and Sanger sequencing were used to test for POLE mutations in 544 tumors. Correlations between demographic, survival, clinicopathologic, and molecular features were investigated. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Thirty POLE mutations (5.6%) were identified. Mutations were associated with younger age (<60 years; P=.001). POLE mutations were detected in tumors with microsatellite stability (MSS) and microsatellite instability (MSI) at similar frequencies (5.9% and 5.2%, respectively) and were most common in tumors with MSI that lacked mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) methylation (P<.001). There was no association with progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.22; P=.127). CONCLUSIONS: The discovery that mutations occur with equal frequency in MSS and MSI tumors and are most frequent in MSI tumors lacking MLH1 methylation has implications for Lynch syndrome screening and mutation testing. The current results indicate that POLE mutations are associated with somatic mutation in DNA mismatch repair genes in a subset of tumors. The absence of an association between POLE mutation and progression-free survival indicates that POLE mutation status is unlikely to be a clinically useful prognostic marker. However, POLE testing in MSI ECs could serve as a marker of somatic disease origin. Therefore, POLE tumor testing may be a valuable exclusionary criterion for Lynch syndrome gene testing.
Authors: S B Simpkins; T Bocker; E M Swisher; D G Mutch; D J Gersell; A J Kovatich; J P Palazzo; R Fishel; P J Goodfellow Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: C R Boland; S N Thibodeau; S R Hamilton; D Sidransky; J R Eshleman; R W Burt; S J Meltzer; M A Rodriguez-Bigas; R Fodde; G N Ranzani; S Srivastava Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1998-11-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: R Parsons; G M Li; M J Longley; W H Fang; N Papadopoulos; J Jen; A de la Chapelle; K W Kinzler; B Vogelstein; P Modrich Journal: Cell Date: 1993-12-17 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Israel Zighelboim; Paul J Goodfellow; Feng Gao; Randall K Gibb; Matthew A Powell; Janet S Rader; David G Mutch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marcus Bettstetter; Stephan Dechant; Petra Ruemmele; Monika Grabowski; Gisela Keller; Elke Holinski-Feder; Arndt Hartmann; Ferdinand Hofstaedter; Wolfgang Dietmaier Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-06-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Carlos Parra-Herran; Jordan Lerner-Ellis; Bin Xu; Sam Khalouei; Dina Bassiouny; Matthew Cesari; Nadia Ismiil; Sharon Nofech-Mozes Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Janelle B Pakish; Qian Zhang; Zhongyuan Chen; Han Liang; Gary B Chisholm; Ying Yuan; Samuel C Mok; Russell R Broaddus; Karen H Lu; Melinda S Yates Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Casey M Cosgrove; David L Tritchler; David E Cohn; David G Mutch; Craig M Rush; Heather A Lankes; William T Creasman; David S Miller; Nilsa C Ramirez; Melissa A Geller; Matthew A Powell; Floor J Backes; Lisa M Landrum; Cynthia Timmers; Adrian A Suarez; Richard J Zaino; Michael L Pearl; Paul A DiSilvestro; Shashikant B Lele; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Floor J Backes; Christopher J Walker; Paul J Goodfellow; Erinn M Hade; Garima Agarwal; David Mutch; David E Cohn; Adrian A Suarez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Christopher J Walker; Mario A Miranda; Matthew J O'Hern; James S Blachly; Cassandra L Moyer; Jennifer Ivanovich; Karl W Kroll; Ann-Kathrin Eisfeld; Caroline E Sapp; David G Mutch; David E Cohn; Ralf Bundschuh; Paul J Goodfellow Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2016-08-08 Impact factor: 4.878