COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in patients with cancer and the effect of primary tumour subtype and patient demographics: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are purported to have poor COVID-19 outcomes. However, cancer is a heterogeneous group of diseases, encompassing a spectrum of tumour subtypes. The aim of this study was to investigate COVID-19 risk according to tumour subtype and patient demographics in patients with cancer in the UK. METHODS: We compared adult patients with cancer enrolled in the UK Coronavirus Cancer Monitoring Project (UKCCMP) cohort between March 18 and May 8, 2020, with a parallel non-COVID-19 UK cancer control population from the UK Office for National Statistics (2017 data). The primary outcome of the study was the effect of primary tumour subtype, age, and sex and on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) prevalence and the case-fatality rate during hospital admission. We analysed the effect of tumour subtype and patient demographics (age and sex) on prevalence and mortality from COVID-19 using univariable and multivariable models. FINDINGS: 319 (30·6%) of 1044 patients in the UKCCMP cohort died, 295 (92·5%) of whom had a cause of death recorded as due to COVID-19. The all-cause case-fatality rate in patients with cancer after SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly associated with increasing age, rising from 0·10 in patients aged 40-49 years to 0·48 in those aged 80 years and older. Patients with haematological malignancies (leukaemia, lymphoma, and myeloma) had a more severe COVID-19 trajectory compared with patients with solid organ tumours (odds ratio [OR] 1·57, 95% CI 1·15-2·15; p<0·0043). Compared with the rest of the UKCCMP cohort, patients with leukaemia showed a significantly increased case-fatality rate (2·25, 1·13-4·57; p=0·023). After correction for age and sex, patients with haematological malignancies who had recent chemotherapy had an increased risk of death during COVID-19-associated hospital admission (OR 2·09, 95% CI 1·09-4·08; p=0·028). INTERPRETATION: Patients with cancer with different tumour types have differing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 phenotypes. We generated individualised risk tables for patients with cancer, considering age, sex, and tumour subtype. Our results could be useful to assist physicians in informed risk-benefit discussions to explain COVID-19 risk and enable an evidenced-based approach to national social isolation policies. FUNDING: University of Birmingham and University of Oxford.

DNA polymerase ε and δ exonuclease domain mutations in endometrial cancer.

Accurate duplication of DNA prior to cell division is essential to suppress mutagenesis and tumour development. The high fidelity of eukaryotic DNA replication is due to a combination of accurate incorporation of nucleotides into the nascent DNA strand by DNA polymerases, the recognition and removal of mispaired nucleotides (proofreading) by the exonuclease activity of DNA polymerases δ and ε, and post-replication surveillance and repair of newly synthesized DNA by the mismatch repair (MMR) apparatus. While the contribution of defective MMR to neoplasia is well recognized, evidence that faulty DNA polymerase activity is important in cancer development has been limited. We have recently shown that germline POLE and POLD1 exonuclease domain mutations (EDMs) predispose to colorectal cancer (CRC) and, in the latter case, to endometrial cancer (EC). Somatic POLE mutations also occur in 5-10% of sporadic CRCs and underlie a hypermutator, microsatellite-stable molecular phenotype. We hypothesized that sporadic ECs might also acquire somatic POLE and/or POLD1 mutations. Here, we have found that missense POLE EDMs with good evidence of pathogenic effects are present in 7% of a set of 173 endometrial cancers, although POLD1 EDMs are uncommon. The POLE mutations localized to highly conserved residues and were strongly predicted to affect proofreading. Consistent with this, POLE-mutant tumours were hypermutated, with a high frequency of base substitutions, and an especially large relative excess of G:C>T:A transversions. All POLE EDM tumours were microsatellite stable, suggesting that defects in either DNA proofreading or MMR provide alternative mechanisms to achieve genomic instability and tumourigenesis.

Fine-mapping analysis including over 254,000 East Asian and European descendants identifies 136 putative colorectal cancer susceptibility genes.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 200 common genetic variants independently associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk, but the causal variants and target genes are mostly unknown. We sought to fine-map all known CRC risk loci using GWAS data from 100,204 cases and 154,587 controls of East Asian and European ancestry. Our stepwise conditional analyses revealed 238 independent association signals of CRC risk, each with a set of credible causal variants (CCVs), of which 28 signals had a single CCV. Our cis-eQTL/mQTL and colocalization analyses using colorectal tissue-specific transcriptome and methylome data separately from 1299 and 321 individuals, along with functional genomic investigation, uncovered 136 putative CRC susceptibility genes, including 56 genes not previously reported. Analyses of single-cell RNA-seq data from colorectal tissues revealed 17 putative CRC susceptibility genes with distinct expression patterns in specific cell types. Analyses of whole exome sequencing data provided additional support for several target genes identified in this study as CRC susceptibility genes. Enrichment analyses of the 136 genes uncover pathways not previously linked to CRC risk. Our study substantially expanded association signals for CRC and provided additional insight into the biological mechanisms underlying CRC development.

Integrating genome-wide polygenic risk scores and non-genetic risk to predict colorectal cancer diagnosis using UK Biobank data: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of combining polygenic risk scores with the QCancer-10 (colorectal cancer) prediction model for non-genetic risk to identify people at highest risk of colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Population based cohort study. SETTING: Data from the UK Biobank study, collected between March 2006 and July 2010. PARTICIPANTS: 434 587 individuals with complete data for genetics and QCancer-10 predictions were included in the QCancer-10 plus polygenic risk score modelling and validation cohorts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prediction of colorectal cancer diagnosis by genetic, non-genetic, and combined risk models. Using data from UK Biobank, six different polygenic risk scores for colorectal cancer were developed using LDpred2 polygenic risk score software, clumping, and thresholding approaches, and a model based on genome-wide significant polymorphisms. The top performing genome-wide polygenic risk score and the score containing genome-wide significant polymorphisms were combined with QCancer-10 and performance was compared with QCancer-10 alone. Case-control (logistic regression) and time-to-event (Cox proportional hazards) analyses were used to evaluate risk model performance in men and women. RESULTS: Polygenic risk scores derived using the LDpred2 program performed best, with an odds ratio per standard deviation of 1.584 (95% confidence interval 1.536 to 1.633), and top age and sex adjusted C statistic of 0.733 (95% confidence interval 0.710 to 0.753) in logistic regression models in the validation cohort. Integrated QCancer-10 plus polygenic risk score models out-performed QCancer-10 alone. In men, the integrated LDpred2 model produced a C statistic of 0.730 (0.720 to 0.741) and explained variation of 28.2% (26.3 to 30.1), compared with 0.693 (0.682 to 0.704) and 21.0% (18.9 to 23.1) for QCancer-10 alone. In women, the C statistic for the integrated LDpred2 model was 0.687 (0.673 to 0.702) and explained variation was 21.0% (18.7 to 23.7), compared with 0.645 (0.631 to 0.659) and 12.4% (10.3 to 14.6) for QCancer-10 alone. In the top 20% of individuals at highest absolute risk, the sensitivity and specificity of the integrated LDpred2 models for predicting colorectal cancer diagnosis was 47.8% and 80.3% respectively in men, and 42.7% and 80.1% respectively in women, with increases in absolute risk in the top 5% of risk in men of 3.47-fold and in women of 2.77-fold compared with the median. Illustrative decision curve analysis indicated a small incremental improvement in net benefit with QCancer-10 plus polygenic risk score models compared with QCancer-10 alone. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating polygenic risk scores with QCancer-10 modestly improves risk prediction over use of QCancer-10 alone. Given that QCancer-10 data can be obtained relatively easily from health records, use of polygenic risk score in risk stratified population screening for colorectal cancer currently has no clear justification. The added benefit, cost effectiveness, and acceptability of polygenic risk scores should be carefully evaluated in a real life screening setting before implementation in the general population.