MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403151694 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvae163.2283

8657 Thymic Neoplasia in a Pediatric Patient With LI-Fraumeni Syndrome: A Case Report

2024· article· en· W4403151694 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mariana Ataide Souza, Wallisson Medeiros Lins, Fernanda Queiroz Aratani, Stephanie Kallas Beeby, Debora di Matteo, Jose Llumiquinga Marcayata, Aliny Weber Kuhn, Helaine Charcar, Felipe Ledesma, Madson Q. Almeida, Fábio Biscegli Jatene, Berenice Bilharinho Mendonca, Maria Candida Barisson Villares Fragoso

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLi–Fraumeni syndromeMedicinePediatricsGeneticsBiologyMutation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disclosure: M.A. Souza: None. W.M. Lins: None. D. di Matteo: None. J.L. Marcayata: None. A. Kuhn: None. H. Charcar: None. F. Ledesma: None. M.Q. Almeida: None. F. Jatene: None. B.B. Mendonca: None. M.C. Fragoso: None. Introduction: Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) is a rare autosomal dominant hereditary cancer predisposition syndrome primarily caused by pathogenic variants in the TP53 tumor suppressor gene. The individuals affected are typically young, with a cancer risk of approximately 90% in lifetime. Parents choosing to test their young children face the dilemma of when to disclose their own or the child's status and when to initiate cancer screening if LFS is detected. This process presents psychosocial challenges for both parents and affected children. Both providers and patients question whether the surveillance benefits outweigh the psychological burden of knowing LFS status and screening-related concerns, creating ambivalence toward genetic testing decisions.Case Report: We describe a 6-year-old male with Li-Fraumeni syndrome carrier of the germline pathogenic variant TP53 c.818G>A (p.R273H) in heterozygous (exon 8).In the family history, there are three relatives with advanced tumor cases, with the grandmother already deceased, the mother undergoing chemotherapy treatment, and the cousin being cancer-free for 10 years.The patient in question had no gestational complications. No consanguinity between parents. No signs or symptoms of hormonal hyperfunction. As proposed in the literature, Li-Fraumeni Syndrome patients should undergo frequent screening for early tumor detection, the patient began screening according to the Toronto protocol in 2018, at the age of 1 year and 7 months, through cranial and thoracic MRI, abdominal ultrasound, and annual hormonal assays. In the thoracic MRI conducted in February 2023, an enlarged and heterogeneously signaling thymus was identified, with a nodular formation (absent in previous exams), measuring about 2.5 cm. Facing suspicion of a thymoma, thymic carcinoma, or lymphoma, a biopsy guided by tomography in March 2023 was done. Histological examination was compatible with primary thymic neoplasia. During follow-up, a significant growth of the mass to 9 cm was observed. The patient underwent surgical treatment in August 2023 with resection of the mediastinal mass, and the anatomopathological examination revealed undifferentiated thymic carcinoma, followed in conjunction with the pediatric oncology team. The dilemma is about the adjuvant radiotherapy since the possibility to acquire a new tumor radio-induced such as sarcoma. We proposed to follow with MRI imaging each 3 months and if minimal signal of recurrence he will underwent radiotherapy. Conclusion: In addition to the intrinsic rarity of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome, this case draws attention to the possibility of a thymic tumor, an extremely rare neoplasm in syndrome carriers. In the literature, only scattered case reports show this association. Furthermore, this case reinforces the importance of systematic screening for investigating possible neoplasms in this susceptible population. Presentation: 6/1/2024

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207