QPOLE: A Quick, Simple, and Cheap Alternative for POLE Sequencing in Endometrial Cancer by Multiplex Genotyping Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction

PURPOSE Detection of 11 pathogenic variants in the POLE gene in endometrial cancer (EC) is critically important to identify women with a good prognosis and reduce overtreatment. Currently, POLE status is determined by DNA sequencing, which can be expensive, relatively time-consuming, and unavailable in hospitals without specialized equipment and personnel. This may hamper the implementation of POLE-testing in clinical practice. To overcome this, we developed and validated a rapid, low-cost POLE hotspot test by a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) assay, QPOLE. MATERIALS AND METHODS Primer and fluorescence-labeled 5'-nuclease probe sequences of the 11 established pathogenic POLE mutations were designed. Three assays, QPOLE-frequent for the most common mutations and QPOLE-rare-1 and QPOLE-rare-2 for the rare variants, were developed and optimized using DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues. The simplicity of the design enables POLE status assessment within 4-6 hours after DNA isolation. An interlaboratory external validation study was performed to determine the practical feasibility of this assay. RESULTS Cutoffs for POLE wild-type, POLE-mutant, equivocal, and failed results were predefined on the basis of a subset of POLE mutants and POLE wild-types for the internal and external validation. For equivocal cases, additional DNA sequencing is recommended. Performance in 282 EC cases, of which 99 were POLE-mutated, demonstrated an overall accuracy of 98.6% (95% CI, 97.2 to 99.9), a sensitivity of 95.2% (95% CI, 90.7 to 99.8), and a specificity of 100%. After DNA sequencing of 8.8% equivocal cases, the final sensitivity and specificity were 96.0% (95% CI, 92.1 to 99.8) and 100%. External validation confirmed feasibility and accuracy. CONCLUSION QPOLE is a qPCR assay that is a quick, simple, and reliable alternative for DNA sequencing. QPOLE detects all pathogenic variants in the exonuclease domain of the POLE gene. QPOLE will make low-cost POLE-testing available for all women with EC around the globe.

[1]  T. Werner,et al.  The time is now to start molecular subtyping high-intermediate and high-risk endometrial cancers , 2022, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[2]  J. Ledermann,et al.  Endometrial cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. , 2022, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  P. Pollock,et al.  p53 immunohistochemistry in endometrial cancer: clinical and molecular correlates in the PORTEC-3 trial , 2022, Modern Pathology.

[4]  T. Bosse,et al.  Prognostic relevance of the molecular classification in high-grade endometrial cancer for patients staged by lymphadenectomy and without adjuvant treatment. , 2022, Gynecologic oncology.

[5]  Hyojin Kim,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a droplet digital PCR assay for detecting POLE mutations and molecular classification of endometrial cancer , 2021, Journal of gynecologic oncology.

[6]  David F. Steiner,et al.  Prospective molecular classification of endometrial carcinomas: institutional implementation, practice, and clinical experience , 2021, Modern Pathology.

[7]  R. Buckanovich,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of tumor molecular classification in high-risk early-stage endometrial cancer. , 2021, Gynecologic oncology.

[8]  A. Talhouk,et al.  Evaluation of treatment effects in patients with endometrial cancer and POLE mutations: An individual patient data meta‐analysis , 2021, Cancer.

[9]  Qi Wang,et al.  Variations in incidence and mortality rates of endometrial cancer at the global, regional, and national levels, 1990-2019. , 2021, Gynecologic oncology.

[10]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[11]  Cyrus Chargari,et al.  ESGO/ESTRO/ESP guidelines for the management of patients with endometrial carcinoma , 2020, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[12]  H. Putter,et al.  Long-term toxicity and health-related quality of life after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for high-risk endometrial cancer in the randomised PORTEC-3 trial. , 2020, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[13]  H. Putter,et al.  PORTEC-4a: international randomized trial of molecular profile-based adjuvant treatment for women with high-intermediate risk endometrial cancer , 2020, International Journal of Gynecological Cancer.

[14]  C. Gilks,et al.  Interpretation of somatic POLE mutations in endometrial carcinoma , 2019, The Journal of pathology.

[15]  M. Köbel,et al.  p53 immunohistochemistry is an accurate surrogate for TP53 mutational analysis in endometrial carcinoma biopsies , 2019, The Journal of pathology.

[16]  T. Bosse,et al.  Molecular-integrated risk profile to determine adjuvant radiotherapy in endometrial cancer: Evaluation of the pilot phase of the PORTEC-4a trial. , 2018, Gynecologic oncology.

[17]  A. Talhouk,et al.  Confirmation of ProMisE: A simple, genomics‐based clinical classifier for endometrial cancer , 2017, Cancer.

[18]  A. Talhouk,et al.  Detection of DNA mismatch repair (MMR) deficiencies by immunohistochemistry can effectively diagnose the microsatellite instability (MSI) phenotype in endometrial carcinomas. , 2015, Gynecologic oncology.

[19]  H. Morreau,et al.  Assessment of a fully automated high-throughput DNA extraction method from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue for KRAS, and BRAF somatic mutation analysis. , 2013, Experimental and molecular pathology.

[20]  Tom H. Pringle,et al.  The human genome browser at UCSC. , 2002, Genome research.