Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS), a multiorgan cancer predisposition caused by germline TP53 mutations, confers significant cancer risks for young people (15–39 years). Yet evidence of how individuals experience this condition and the psychosocial implications are lacking. Therefore, this systematic review assessed the psychosocial implications of living with, or at risk of, an autosomal dominant condition as a young person, to draw evidence that may be analogous for young people with LFS.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic search for studies published in peer-reviewed journals using Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase databases. Findings were synthesized and are reported thematically.
Results:
We screened 352 articles and identified 39 studies, representing the perspectives of 765 young people. Most studies addressed hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (n = 22) and used qualitative methodologies (n = 35). Only one LFS study was identified, highlighting the distinct lack of psychosocial research describing experiences of young people with LFS. Translatable evidence showed that familial factors strongly influenced young people's experiences of genetic testing and their mutation status. Major adverse reactions to genetic test results were rare, although young people with a gene mutation experienced various psychosocial concerns at key developmental milestones, including family planning, developing romantic relationships, and making risk management decisions.
Conclusion:
Young people undergoing genetic testing for inherited disease require individualized support and recognition of previous lived experiences. We recommend that longitudinal care be made available to young people with inherited disease as they reach developmental milestones that intersect with risk management, risk perception, and family formation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ZebrackBJ, BlockR, Hayes-LattinB, et al.Psychosocial service use and unmet need among recently diagnosed adolescent and young adult cancer patients. Cancer. 2013; 119(1):201–14.
2.
BibbyH, WhiteV, ThompsonK, AnazodoA. What are the unmet needs and care experiences of adolescents and young adults with cancer? A systematic review. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2016; 6(1):6–30.
3.
AYA Oncology Progress Review Group. Closing the Gap: Research and Care Imperatives for Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer. NIH Publication No. 06–6067. NIH, NCI2006.
4.
KratzCP, AchatzMI, BrugièresL, et al.Cancer screening recommendations for individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Clin Canc Res. 2017; 23(11):e38–45.
5.
MaiPL, BestAF, PetersJA, et al.Risks of first and subsequent cancers among TP53 mutation carriers in the National Cancer Institute Li-Fraumeni Syndrome cohort. Cancer. 2016; 122(23):3673–81.
6.
MaiPL, KhinchaPP, LoudJT, et al.Prevalence of cancer at baseline screening in the National Cancer Institute Li-Fraumeni Syndrome cohort. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(12):1640–1645.
7.
BallingerML, BestA, MaiPL, et al.Baseline surveillance in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(12):1634–1639.
8.
VillaniA, ShoreA, WassermanJD, et al.Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: 11 year follow-up of a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(9):1295–305.
9.
RossJ, BojadzievaJ, PetersonS, et al.The psychosocial effects of the Li-Fraumeni Education and Early Detection (LEAD) program on individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Genet Med. 2017; 19(9):1064–71.
10.
McBrideKA, BallingerML, SchlubTE, et al.Psychosocial morbidity in TP53 mutation carriers: is whole-body cancer screening beneficial?. Fam Cancer. 2017; 16(3):423–32.
11.
LammensCR, BleikerEM, AaronsonNK, et al.Regular surveillance for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: advice, adherence and perceived benefits. Fam Cancer. 2010; 9(4):647–54.
12.
KesserwanC, Friedman RossL, BradburyAR, NicholsKE. The advantages and challenges of testing children for heritable predisposition to cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016; 35:251–69.
13.
OppenheimD, BrugieresL, ChompretA, HartmannO. The psychological burden inflicted by multiple cancers in Li-Fraumeni families: five case studies. J Genet Couns. 2001; 10(2):169.
14.
PetersonSK, PentzRD, MaraniSK, et al.Psychological functioning in persons considering genetic counseling and testing for Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Psychooncology. 2008; 17(8):783–9.
15.
LammensCR, AaronsonNK, WagnerA, et al.Genetic testing in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: uptake and psychosocial consequences. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28(18):3008–14.
16.
PetersJA, KenenR, BremerR, et al.Easing the burden: describing the role of social, emotional and spiritual support in research families with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(3):529–42.
17.
ArnettJJ. Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000; 55(5):469–80.
18.
SawyerSM, AfifiRA, BearingerLH, et al.Adolescence: a foundation for future health. Lancet. 2012; 379(9826):1630–40.
19.
DuncanR, YoungMA. Tricky teens: are they really tricky or do genetic health professionals simply require more training in adolescent health?. Pers Med. 2013; 10(6):589–600.
20.
VetschJ, WakefieldCE, WarbyM, et al.Cancer-related genetic testing and personalized medicine for adolescents: a narrative review of impact and understanding. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2018; 7(3):259–262.
21.
GodinoL, TurchettiD, JacksonL, et al.Impact of presymptomatic genetic testing on young adults: a systematic review. Eur J Hum Genet. 2016; 24(4):496–503.
22.
MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, et al.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097.
23.
TongA, FlemmingK, McInnesE, et al.Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12(1):181.
24.
O'BrienBC, HarrisIB, BeckmanTJ, et al.Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014; 89(9):1245–51.
25.
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Appraising qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies included in mixed studies reviews: The MMAT. 2015. Accessed April30, 2018 from: www.nccmt.ca/resources/search/232
26.
ThomasJ, HardenA. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8(1):45.
27.
AlderferMA, LindellRB, ViadroCI, et al.Should genetic testing be offered for children? The perspectives of adolescents and emerging adults in families with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2017; 26(5):1106–15.
28.
BradburyAR, Patrick-MillerL, EglestonBL, et al.Knowledge and perceptions of familial and genetic risks for breast cancer risk in adolescent girls. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012; 136(3):749–57.
29.
BradburyAR, Patrick-MillerL, PawlowskiK, et al.Learning of your parent's BRCA mutation during adolescence or early adulthood: a study of offspring experiences. Psychooncology. 2009; 18(2):200–8.
30.
BradburyAR, Patrick-MillerL, SchwartzLA, et al.Psychosocial adjustment and perceived risk among adolescent girls from families with BRCA1/2 or breast cancer history. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34(28):3409–3416.
31.
GongP, FanosJH, KortyL, et al.Impact of huntington disease gene-positive status on pre-symptomatic young adults and recommendations for genetic counselors. J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(6):1188–97.
32.
HamiltonR. Being young, female, and BRCA positive. Am J Nurs. 2012; 112(10):26–31.
33.
HamiltonR, HurleyKE. Conditions and consequences of a BRCA mutation in young, single women of childbearing age. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2010; 37(5):627–34.
34.
HamiltonR, WilliamsJK, BowersBJ, CalzoneK. Life trajectories, genetic testing, and risk reduction decisions in 18–39 year old women at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. J Genet Couns. 2009; 18(2):147.
35.
HoskinsLM, GreeneMH. Anticipatory loss and early mastectomy for young female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(12):1633–46.
36.
HoskinsLM, RoyK, PetersJA, et al.Disclosure of positive BRCA1/2-mutation status in young couples: the journey from uncertainty to bonding through partner support. Fam Syst Health. 2008; 26(3):296–316.
37.
HoskinsLM, RoyKM, GreeneMH. Toward a new understanding of risk perception among young female BRCA1/2 “previvors.”. Fam Syst Health. 2012; 30(1):32–46.
38.
HoskinsLM, Werner-LinA. A multi-case report of the pathways to and through genetic testing and cancer risk management for BRCA mutation-positive women aged 18–25. J Genet Couns. 2013; 22(1):27–38.
39.
HoskinsLM, Werner-LinA, GreeneMH. In their own words: treating very young BRCA1/2 mutation-positive women with care and caution. PLoS One. 2014; 9(2):e87696.
40.
KavanaughMS, NohH, StuderL. “It'd be nice if someone asked me how I was doing. Like, ‘cause I will have an answer”: exploring support needs of young carers of a parent with Huntington's disease. Vulnerable Child Youth Stud., 2015; 10(1):12–25.
41.
PatenaudeAF, TungN, RyanPD, et al.Young adult daughters of BRCA1/2 positive mothers: what do they know about hereditary cancer and how much do they worry?. Psychooncology. 2013; 22(9):2024–31.
42.
Werner-LinA. Danger zones: risk perceptions of young women from families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Fam Process. 2007; 46(3):335–49.
43.
Werner-LinA. Beating the biological clock: the compressed family life cycle of young women with BRCA gene alterations. Soc Work in Health Care. 2008a;47(4):416–37.
44.
Werner-LinA. Formal and informal support needs of young women with BRCA mutations. J Psychosoc Oncol., 2008b;26(4):111–33.
45.
Werner-LinA. Building the cancer family: family planning in the context of inherited breast and ovarian cancer risk. J Soc Social Work Res. 2010; 1(1):14–27.
46.
Werner-LinA, HoskinsLM, DoyleMH, GreeneMH. “Cancer doesn't have an age”: genetic testing and cancer risk management in BRCA1/2 mutation-positive women aged 18–24. Health (London). 2012; 16(6):636–54.
47.
YoungJL, Werner-LinA, MuellerR, et al.Longitudinal cancer risk management trajectories of BRCA1/2 mutation-positive reproductive-age women. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2017; 35(4):393–408.
48.
DrauckerCB, NutakkiK, VarniJW, SwigonskiNL. The health-related quality of life of children, adolescents, and young adults with neurofibromatosis type 1 and their families: analysis of narratives. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2017; 22(2):e12174.
49.
EvansC, HamiltonRJ, TercyakKP, et al.Understanding the needs of young women regarding breast cancer risk assessment and genetic testing: convergence and divergence among patient-counselor perceptions and the promise of peer support. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2016; 4(3):35.
50.
AndrewsL, MireskandariS, JessenJ, et al.Impact of familial adenomatous polyposis on young adults: quality of life outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007; 50(9):1306–15.
51.
DuncanRE, GillamL, SavulescuJ, et al.“Holding your breath”: interviews with young people who have undergone predictive genetic testing for Huntington disease. Am J Med Genet A. 2007; 143A(17):1984–9.
52.
DuncanRE, GillamL, SavulescuJ, et al.“You're one of us now”: young people describe their experiences of predictive genetic testing for Huntington disease (HD) and familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Am J Med Genet C. 2008; 148C(1):47–55.
53.
DuncanRE, GillamL, SavulescuJ, et al.The challenge of developmentally appropriate care: predictive genetic testing in young people for familial adenomatous polyposis. Fam Cancer. 2010; 9(1):27–35.
54.
GlasseyR, O'ConnorM, IvesA, et al.Heightened perception of breast cancer risk in young women at risk of familial breast cancer. Fam Cancer. 2018; 17(1):15–22.
55.
MandCM, GillamL, DuncanRE, DelatyckiMB. “It was the missing piece”: adolescent experiences of predictive genetic testing for adult-onset conditions. Genet Med. 2013; 15(8):643–9.
56.
MandCM, GillamL, DuncanRE, DelatyckiMB. “I'm scared of being like mum”: the experience of adolescents living in families with huntington disease. J Huntington Dis. 2015; 4(3):209–17.
57.
MireskandariS, SangsterJ, MeiserB, et al.Psychosocial impact of familial adenomatous polyposis on young adults: a qualitative study. J Genet Couns. 2009; 18(5):409–17.
58.
BrunstromK, MurrayA, McAllisterM. Experiences of women who underwent predictive BRCA 1/2 mutation testing before the age of 30. J Genet Couns. 2016; 25(1):90–100.
59.
Forrest KeenanK, McKeeL, MiedzybrodzkaZ. Help or hindrance: young people's experiences of predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Clin Genet. 2015; 87(6):563–9.
60.
Forrest KeenanK, MiedzybrodzkaZ, Van TeijlingenE, et al.Young people's experiences of growing up in a family affected by Huntington's disease. Clin Genet. 2007; 71(2):120–9.
61.
Forrest KeenanK, van TeijlingenE, McKeeL, et al.How young people find out about their family history of Huntington's disease. Soc Sci Med. 2009; 68(10):1892–900.
62.
MacLeodR, BeachA, HenriquesS, et al.Experiences of predictive testing in young people at risk of Huntington's disease, familial cardiomyopathy or hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. Eur J Hum Genet. 2014; 22(3):396–401.
63.
OrmondroydE, DonnellyL, MoynihanC, et al.Attitudes to reproductive genetic testing in women who had a positive BRCA test before having children: a qualitative analysis. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012; 20(1):4–10.
64.
DurnoCA, WongJ, BerkT, et al.Quality of life and functional outcome for individuals who underwent very early colectomy for familial adenomatous polyposis. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012; 55(4):436–43.
65.
HummelvollG, AntonsenKM. Young adults' experience of living with neurofibromatosis type 1. J Genet Couns. 2013; 22(2):188–99.
66.
Werner-LinA, GardnerDS. Family illness narratives of inherited cancer risk: continuity and transformation. Fam Syst Health. 2009; 27(3):201–12.
67.
HallowellN, FosterC, EelesR, et al.Balancing autonomy and responsibility: the ethics of generating and disclosing genetic information. J Med Ethics. 2003; 29(2):74–9.
68.
Werner-LinA, TomlinsonA, MillerV, BernhardtBA. Adolescent engagement during assent for exome sequencing. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2016; 7(4):275–84.
69.
RodriguesKC, ToledoRA, CoutinhoFL, et al.Assessment of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and coping in long-standing multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2 patients. Thyroid. 2017; 27(5):693–706.
70.
GoswamiS, PeipertBJ, HelenowskiI, et al.Disease and treatment factors associated with lower quality of life scores in adults with multiple endocrine neoplasia type I. Surgery (United States). 2017; 162(6):1270–7.
71.
LammensCR, BleikerEMA, VerhoefS, et al.Psychosocial impact of Von Hippel–Lindau disease: levels and sources of distress. Clin Genet. 2010; 77(5):483–91.
72.
KasparianNA, RutsteinA, Sansom-DalyUM, et al.Through the looking glass: an exploratory study of the lived experiences and unmet needs of families affected by Von Hippel-Lindau disease. Eur J Hum Genet. 2015; 23(1):34–40.
73.
MeiserB. Psychological impact of genetic testing for cancer susceptibility: an update of the literature. Psychooncology. 2005; 14(12):1060–74.
74.
TseC, SahharM, WallaceJ, DuncanRE. “There's a whole different way of working with adolescents”: interviews with Australian Genetic Counselors about their experiences with adolescent clients. J Genet Couns. 2013; 22(5):674–84.
75.
Werner-LinA, RatnerR, HoskinsLM, LieberC. A survey of genetic counselors about the needs of 18–25 year olds from families with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer syndrome. J Genet Couns. 2015; 24(1):78–87.
76.
Sansom-DalyUM, LinM, RobertsonEG, et al.Health literacy in adolescents and young adults: an updated review. J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2016; 5(2):106–18.
77.
McGillBC, WakefieldCE, VetschJ, et al.Children and young people's understanding of inherited conditions and their attitudes towards genetic testing: a systematic review. Clin Genet., 2018 [Epub ahead of print]; DOI: 10.1111/cge.13253
78.
GonzalezKD, BuzinCH, NoltnerKA, et al.High frequency of de novo mutations in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. J Med Genet. 2009; 46(10):689–93.
79.
HampelH, BennettRL, BuchananA, et al.A practice guideline from the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the National Society of Genetic Counselors: referral indications for cancer predisposition assessment. Genet Med. 2014; 17:70.
80.
Renaux-PetelM, CharbonnierF, ThéryJC, et al.Contribution of de novo and mosaic TP53 mutations to Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. J Med Genet. 2018; 55(3):173–80.
81.
VillaniA, TaboriU, SchiffmanJ, et al.Biochemical and imaging surveillance in germline TP53 mutation carriers with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: a prospective observational study. Lancet Oncol. 2011; 12(6):559–67.
82.
AretzS, UhlhaasS, CaspariR, et al.Frequency and parental origin of de novo APC mutations in familial adenomatous polyposis. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003; 12:52.
83.
RasmussenA, AlonsoE, OchoaA, et al.Uptake of genetic testing and long-term tumor surveillance in von Hippel-Lindau disease. BMC Med Genet. 2010; 11:4.
84.
GutmannDH, FernerRE, ListernickRH, et al.Neurofibromatosis type 1. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2017; 3:17004.
85.
FernerRE, GutmannDH. Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1): diagnosis and management. Hand Clin Neurol. 2013; 115:939–55.
86.
ThakkerRV, NeweyPJ, WallsGV, et al.Clinical practice guidelines for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1). J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012; 97(9):2990–3011.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
