MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411506634 · doi:10.1080/14737140.2025.2522943

The argument for screening programs in previvors with Li-Fraumeni syndrome

2025· review· en· W4411506634 on OpenAlexafffund
Meis Omran, David Malkin

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
FundersTerry Fox Foundation
KeywordsLi–Fraumeni syndromeMedicineCancerAsymptomaticModalitiesCancer screeningGenetic testingOncologyGermline mutationInternal medicineMutationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a cancer predisposition syndrome caused by pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline TP53 variants. Core cancers include sarcomas, brain tumors, adrenocortical carcinoma and breast cancer. Surveillance with whole-body MRI (WBMRI) and other modalities is used for early cancer detection, regardless of the individual's personal cancer history. With the increasing use of diagnostic multigene panels in oncology, more diverse phenotypic presentations have emerged, and subsequent cascade testing identifies more asymptomatic cancer-free individuals - 'previvors.' AREAS COVERED: This review analyzes aspects of early cancer detection screening programs in asymptomatic germline TP53 variant carriers including current guidelines, specific founder variant populations, health economics and emerging strategies including liquid biopsies and wearable devices. A literature search with PubMed included publications in English until April 2025. EXPERT OPINION: Current guidelines recommend WBMRI in all LFS individuals, regardless of their prior cancer history, due to its demonstrated survival advantage. Guidelines for use of other modalities such as endoscopy, ultrasound or laboratory tests are less well-established. Therefore, longitudinal prospective studies including all these modalities and their cancer detection rates are needed. In the future, a one-size-fits-all approach toward surveillance will be replaced by more precise patient-centered tailor-made screening programs incorporating noninvasive methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.328 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207