SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “POLE pathogenic mutation”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

The clinical landscape of POLE-mutant colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis of real-world outcome.

BACKGROUND: Pathogenic mutations in the POLE gene disrupt its proofreading function during DNA replication, causing an accumulation of erroneous nucleotide incorporations. This defect leads to a significantly elevated tumor mutation burden (TMB) and increased generation of tumor neoantigens. These molecular characteristics suggest a potential association between POLE-mutant tumors and distinct prognostic outcomes in colorectal cancer (CRC); however, clinical evidence supporting this correlation remains limited. METHODS: We retrospectively collected a cohort of CRC patients harboring pathogenic POLE mutations. Comparative analyses were performed between POLE-mutant and POLE wild-type CRCs regarding their clinical characteristics, prognostic outcomes, and genomic profiles. Additionally, we evaluated the response to immunotherapy in metastatic POLE-mutant CRC cases. RESULTS: Among 35,108 CRC patients, pathogenic POLE mutations were identified in 261 individuals, accounting for 0.74% of the cohort. The median age at diagnosis for POLE-mutant patients was 48 years, with a male predominance (74.4%) and a substantial proportion (50.4%) of tumors localized in the right-sided colon. All patients with pathogenic POLE mutations exhibited hypermutated phenotypes, characterized by a median TMB of 235.26 mutations per megabase (range: 71.20-719.00 mutations/Mb). In stage II CRC, POLE mutations were significantly associated with a reduced risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 0.344, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.157-0.754, p = 0.008) when compared to POLE wild-type, microsatellite stable CRC patients. However, this association was not evident in stage III patients (HR 1.004, 95% CI 0.490-2.057, p = 0.992). Importantly, the incorporation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in first-line treatment regimens significantly improved progression-free survival (HR = 0.247, 95% CI 0.117-0.552, p = 0.0002) and overall survival (HR = 0.317, 95% CI 0.103-1.143, p = 0.0832) in metastatic CRC patients with pathogenic POLE mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Pathogenic POLE-mutant CRC constitutes a relatively rare, yet clinically important, subtype. These cancers exhibit distinct clinicopathological and genomic features. Our results indicate that mutations in the POLE gene may serve as a valuable prognostic marker and a potential indicator of benefit to immunotherapy in CRC, offering promising avenues for personalized treatment strategies.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Comparative Analysis of Somatic and Germline Polymerase Proofreading Deficiencies in Cancer: Molecular and Clinical Implications.

Polymerases ε and δ maintain genome integrity through exonuclease proofreading. Germline and somatic pathogenic variants (PVs) in the exonuclease domain (ED) of POLE and POLD1 impair proofreading, causing hypermutated tumors. Despite shared mutational features that make these tumors highly immunogenic, molecular and clinical distinctions between POLE and POLD1 mutations and between somatic and germline variants remain incompletely understood. We compared the molecular and clinical characteristics of POLE and POLD1 ED PVs (n = 31), assessing their location, pathogenicity, clinical phenotypes, mismatch repair (MMR) status, tumor mutational burden, and signatures. We analyzed 360 proofreading-deficient tumors (source: The Cancer Genome Atlas [TCGA] and Catalogue Of Somatic Mutations In Cancer [COSMIC]) and 70 families (249 individuals) with polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis. All germline and somatic PVs had high AlphaMissense scores (0.87-1) and clustered within or near Exo motifs. Recurrent, nonfounder germline PVs, POLE L424V and POLD1 S478N, showed low/modest REVEL scores. Somatic variants occurred mainly in endometrial cancers (75% of proofreading-deficient TCGA cancers), whereas colorectal cancer predominated in polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis (56% of carriers). Cancer risks and tumor spectra differed between POLE and POLD1 PV carriers. Aggressive hereditary phenotypes were linked to either specific POLE PVs (eg, S297F, V411L, P436R, M444K, A456P, and S461T) or the co-occurrence of germline ED PVs with germline MMR gene PVs. Distinct hypermutator profiles were confirmed for polymerase ε and polymerase δ proofreading deficiencies via unique mutational signatures (Polymerase ε: SBS10a/b, SBS28; Polymerase δ: SBS10c/d). Tumors with combined proofreading and MMR deficiencies had significantly higher tumor mutational burden and a shift in the associated mutational spectra. Unlike POLE, POLD1 ED PVs exhibited haplosufficiency, typically requiring a somatic second hit (eg, loss of heterozygosity) or MMR deficiency to drive hypermutation. In conclusion, differences between POLE and POLD1 and between somatic and germline mutations influence clinical presentation, mutagenic potential, and reliance on cooperating defects in tumorigenesis. These insights advance the understanding of proofreading-deficient cancers, with implications for diagnostics, genetic counseling, and precision oncology.

Humans↗