4.6 Article

Risk of colorectal cancer for carriers of a germ-line mutation in POLE or POLD1

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 20, Issue 8, Pages 890-895

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2017.185

Keywords

colorectal cancer; Penetrance; POLD1; POLE; polymerase proofreading-associated polyposis

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [UM1 CA167551]
  2. Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry [U01 CA074778, U01/U24 CA097735]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Germ-line mutations in the exonuclease domains of the POLE and POLD1 genes are associated with an increased, but yet unquantified, risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: We identified families with POLE or POLD1 variants by searching PubMed for relevant studies prior to October 2016 and by genotyping 669 population-based CRC cases diagnosed in patients under 60 years of age, from the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry. We estimated the age-specific cumulative risks (penetrance) using a modified segregation analysis. Results: We observed 67 CRCs (mean age at diagnosis = 50.2 (SD = 13.8) years) among 364 first- and second- degree relatives from 41 POLE families, and 6 CRCs (mean age at diagnosis = 39.7 (SD = 6.83) years) among 69 relatives from 9 POLD1 families. We estimated risks of CRC up to the age of 70 years (95% confidence interval) for males and females, respectively, to be 40% (26-57%) and 32% (20-47%) for POLE mutation carriers and 63% (15-99%) and 52% (11-99%) for POLD1 mutation carriers. Conclusion: CRC risks for POLE mutation carriers are sufficiently high to warrant consideration of annual colonoscopy screening and implementation of management guidelines comparable to those applied in cases of Lynch syndrome. Refinement of estimates of CRC risk for POLD1 carriers is needed; however, clinical management recommendations could follow those made for POLE carriers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available