Ian Tomlinson and colleagues report the identification of germline variants in POLE and POLD1 that are susceptibility alleles for colorectal cancer. POLE and POLD1 encode DNA polymerases that function in DNA replication. Many individuals with multiple or large colorectal adenomas or early-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) have no detectable germline mutations in the known cancer predisposition genes. Using whole-genome sequencing, supplemented by linkage and association analysis, we identified specific heterozygous POLE or POLD1 germline variants in several multiple-adenoma and/or CRC cases but in no controls. The variants associated with susceptibility, POLE p.Leu424Val and POLD1 p.Ser478Asn, have high penetrance, and POLD1 mutation was also associated with endometrial cancer predisposition. The mutations map to equivalent sites in the proofreading (exonuclease) domain of DNA polymerases ɛ and δ and are predicted to cause a defect in the correction of mispaired bases inserted during DNA replication. In agreement with this prediction, the tumors from mutation carriers were microsatellite stable but tended to acquire base substitution mutations, as confirmed by yeast functional assays. Further analysis of published data showed that the recently described group of hypermutant, microsatellite-stable CRCs is likely to be caused by somatic POLE mutations affecting the exonuclease domain.

The intra-tumor stroma percentage in colon cancer (CC) patients has previously been reported by our group as a strong independent prognostic parameter. Patients with a high stroma percentage within the primary tumor have a poor prognosis. Tissue samples from the most invasive part of the primary tumor of 710 patients (52% Stage II, 48% Stage III) participating in the VICTOR trial were analyzed for their tumor-stroma percentage. Stroma-high (>50%) and stroma-low (≤50%) groups were evaluated with respect to survival times. Overall and disease-free survival times (OS and DFS) were significantly lower in the stroma-high group (OS P < 0.0001, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.96; DFS P < 0.0001, HR = 2.15). The 5-year OS was 69.0% versus 83.4% and DFS 58.6% versus 77.3% for stroma-high versus stroma-low patients. This study confirms the intra-tumor stroma ratio as a prognostic factor. This parameter could be a valuable and low cost addition to the TNM status and next to current high-risk parameters such as microsatellite instability status used in routine pathology reporting. When adding the stroma-parameter to the ASCO criteria, the rate of ‘undertreated’ patients dropped from 5.9% to 4.3%, the ‘overtreated’ increased with 6.8% but the correctly classified increased with an additional 14%.

Purpose: Fluourouracil (FU) is a mainstay of chemotherapy, although toxicities are common. Genetic biomarkers have been used to predict these adverse events, but their utility is uncertain.Patients and Methods: We tested candidate polymorphisms identified from a systematic literature search for associations with capecitabine toxicity in 927 patients with colorectal cancer in the Quick and Simple and Reliable trial (QUASAR2). We then performed meta-analysis of QUASAR2 and 16 published studies (n = 4,855 patients) to examine the polymorphisms in various FU monotherapy and combination therapy regimens.Results: Global capecitabine toxicity (grades 0/1/2 v grades 3/4/5) was associated with the rare, functional DPYD alleles 2846T>A and *2A (combined odds ratio, 5.51; P = .0013) and with the common TYMS polymorphisms 5′VNTR2R/3R and 3′UTR 6bp ins-del (combined odds ratio, 1.31; P = 9.4 × 10⁻⁶). There was weaker evidence that these polymorphisms predict toxicity from bolus and infusional FU monotherapy. No good evidence of association with toxicity was found for the remaining polymorphisms, including several currently included in predictive kits. No polymorphisms were associated with toxicity in combination regimens.Conclusion: A panel of genetic biomarkers for capecitabine monotherapy toxicity would currently comprise only the four DPYD and TYMS variants above. We estimate this test could provide 26% sensitivity, 86% specificity, and 49% positive predictive value—better than most available commercial kits, but suboptimal for clinical use. The test panel might be extended to include additional, rare DPYD variants functionally equivalent to *2A and 2846A, though insufficient evidence supports its use in bolus, infusional, or combination FU. There remains a need to identify further markers of FU toxicity for all regimens.