Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: The Inherited TP53 Cancer Condition and Its Screening Record

Table of Contents

1. From Four Families in 1969 to the p53 Finding in 1990
2. Which Cancers Occur and the Lifetime Risks as Reported
3. Classic and Chompret Criteria
4. The Brazilian Founder Variant
5. The Toronto Protocol and Its Survival Result
6. Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results
7. Radiation Exposure Findings
8. Published Surveillance Guideline Statements
9. Metformin and Other Prevention Research by Evidence Type
10. What Is Not Known
11. Key Research Papers
12. Connections
13. Featured Videos

From Four Families in 1969 to the p53 Finding in 1990

Frederick Li and Joseph Fraumeni published their first report in 1969 under a title that ended in a question mark: "Soft-tissue sarcomas, breast cancer, and other neoplasms. A familial syndrome?" A 2021 Japanese medical guideline summarises that paper as describing four families in which a child had rhabdomyosarcoma, a muscle-tissue cancer, and relatives had an unusual spread of other cancers.

In 1988 the same authors searched the Cancer Family Registry of the National Cancer Institute and found 24 families with the pattern. Cancer had developed in 151 blood relatives in a pattern that followed one inherited gene copy, and 119 of them (79%) were affected before age 45. Those young patients had 50 bone and soft-tissue sarcomas and 28 breast cancers, along with 14 brain tumors, 9 leukemias and 4 adrenocortical carcinomas, a cancer of the outer layer of the adrenal gland. Six people had second cancers linked to radiotherapy. The authors wrote that the condition could be diagnosed only on clinical grounds and that a laboratory marker was needed.

The marker came in 1990. As the Science paper explains, the rarity of the families and the high death rate ruled out the usual method of tracing a gene through many relatives. So the team picked the most plausible candidate, p53, because that gene was already known to be disabled in the non-inherited forms of most of the cancers these families developed. Inherited p53 changes turned up in all five families analysed. A second team reported the same year, in Nature, that four members of one family across two generations shared the same change at one position in the gene, while also keeping a normal copy. Their skin cells had an unusual resistance to radiation in the laboratory.

In 1994 a study of 21 families found changes in only seven of them, and showed they clustered in families that included children with rhabdomyosarcoma or adrenal cortical carcinoma. Combining seven new changes with 34 published ones, the authors found that fewer than half of the people first identified with an inherited change came from families meeting the classic definition. The gap between the family pattern and the gene is still central today. A 2017 review reports TP53 changes in 75% of patients with the classic pattern, so a quarter of those families have no identified cause in that gene.

The p53 protein is often called the guardian of the genome. When DNA is damaged, it switches on genes that pause cell division, repair DNA, retire the cell or make it die. In a 2020 European guideline's words, it also acts on cell metabolism. A family's inherited change removes or distorts one copy of that system in every cell of the body. Not every case is inherited from a parent: in a French series of TP53 carriers, at least 14% (48 of 336) carried a change that had arisen new, and about one in five of those arose during embryonic development, so the change was present in only some of the person's cells.

Which Cancers Occur and the Lifetime Risks as Reported

The core cancers named by the 2020 European guideline are soft-tissue sarcoma, osteosarcoma, adrenocortical carcinoma, central nervous system tumors and very early breast cancer, occurring before age 31. Risk estimates differ with how families were found: a family recruited because of many cancers will show higher figures than a person found by a routine gene panel. A 2024 analysis warned that bias of this kind easily affects these numbers, and adjusted for it.

Age shapes which cancer appears. In children in the French series, osteosarcoma, adrenocortical carcinoma, central nervous system tumors and soft-tissue sarcoma occurred in 30%, 27%, 26% and 23% of patients. In adults, breast cancer occurred in 79% of the women and soft-tissue sarcoma in 27% of patients.

Sex also matters. In the National Cancer Institute cohort, risk in females climbed sharply after age 20, mostly because of breast cancer, while in males it was higher in childhood and later adulthood. The Texas family cohort found a higher risk in female than in male carriers, and the difference was not explained by an excess of cancers specific to one sex. A later analysis of 159 families from the same centre put the odds of cancer in women with the change at 7.1 times those of men with the change.

A first cancer does not end the risk. In the National Cancer Institute cohort about 49% of those with one cancer developed another after a median of 10 years, and the age-specific risk of a second cancer was comparable to that of a first. The 2024 analysis also found significantly raised risks of colorectal, stomach, lung, pancreatic and ovarian cancer, beyond the core list. Across a database of 3,043 people, 46 (1.5%) had pancreatic cancer, and 43.2% of cases with a known age were diagnosed before age 50.

The type of gene change appears to matter too. In the French series, mean age at first tumor was 21.3 years with one class of change that disrupts the partner copy of the protein, 28.5 years with changes that simply remove function, and 35.8 years with large rearrangements. Conservative estimates from a population genetic database put between 1 in 3,555 and 1 in 5,476 people as carrying a harmful or likely harmful change, a higher figure than expected, while cautioning that this may not reflect the classic family pattern.

Classic and Chompret Criteria

Two sets of rules are widely used, and they do different jobs. The classic criteria of 1988 describe a family pattern. All three parts have to be met:

• a person with a sarcoma before age 45;
• a parent, sibling or child with any cancer before age 45;
• another parent, sibling, child, grandparent, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew or grandchild with any cancer before age 45, or a sarcoma at any age.

As gene testing spread, many carriers were found who did not fit that pattern, including children with no family history. The Chompret criteria were proposed in 2001 to widen the net, and were revised in 2009 and 2015. The version set out in the 2020 European guideline asks whether any one of the following is present:

• Family presentation: a core tumor before age 46, plus at least one first- or second-degree relative with a core tumor before age 56.
• Multiple tumors: more than one tumor in one person, including two core tumors, the first before age 46, whatever the family history.
• Rare tumors: adrenocortical carcinoma, choroid plexus carcinoma, or rhabdomyosarcoma of the embryonal anaplastic subtype, whatever the family history.
• Very early breast cancer: breast cancer before age 31, whatever the family history.

Performance figures differ by setting. A 2009 series of 525 consecutive patients sent for testing found changes in 91 (17%); 95% of carriers with known histories (71 of 75) met either the classic or the Chompret rules. Every person with a choroid plexus tumor (8 of 8) and 14 of 21 with childhood adrenocortical carcinoma carried a change. In the French series, among people with no other features of the condition, carriers made up 45% of children with adrenocortical carcinoma, 42% of children with choroid plexus carcinoma and 6% of women with breast cancer before age 31.

The same rule does not perform the same everywhere. The Japanese guideline cites 75% sensitivity and 64.5% specificity for the 2015 Chompret version, meaning a quarter of carriers were missed. A 2021 study from southern Brazil found a change in 13.6% of 191 people with cancer who met the rule. A 2026 report on 178 prospectively collected people found much lower sensitivity for Chompret (33%), and higher sensitivity (81%) for a statistical model built on family history. A 2021 analysis of the international TP53 database of 3,034 people found that carriers who did not meet testing criteria had more breast cancer and other cancers, with 45% of those cancers arising after age 45. It proposed the wider term Li-Fraumeni spectrum, covering phenotypic, attenuated and incidental forms alongside the syndrome itself. The European panel similarly proposed the name heritable TP53-related cancer syndrome.

The Brazilian Founder Variant

Southern Brazil has a child adrenal cancer rate that a 2001 report put at 10 to 15 times the worldwide rate. Of 36 Brazilian children with the cancer, 35 carried the same inherited change, written R337H. Their families showed no increased history of cancer, and the authors described a low-penetrance change, meaning many who carry it never develop the disease. They also concluded from gene markers that at least some of these changes arose independently, ruling out a single ancestor.

Later work reached the opposite conclusion on ancestry. A 2015 study of 12 family trios found that all share one ancestral gene stretch of Portuguese-Iberian origin, dating back about 72 to 84 generations, roughly 2,000 years, before European migration to Brazil. So far it has been detected outside Brazil only in two residents of Portugal, one of them of Brazilian origin. This is why it is now called a founder variant.

It is unusually common. It appeared in 0.3% of 750 healthy women in a community breast screening program in Porto Alegre, a rate 10 to 20 times higher than other TP53 changes linked to the syndrome. Among 171,649 newborns tested in the state of Paraná, 461 (0.27%) were carriers. A later report gave carrier rates of 0.245% in Santa Catarina and 0.306% in Paraná.

That adult comparison also reports that the gap narrows with age: by 65, 80% of R337H carriers and 91% of carriers of other variants had at least one cancer in that study. Breast cancer and soft-tissue sarcoma were the most common in females, soft-tissue sarcoma and prostate cancer in males. A 2026 paper argues that disease-causing variants with atypical penetrance need separate risk figures and separate advice, and that today's classification rules do not recognize them properly. The European guideline recommends that children with any cancer from southern and south-eastern Brazilian families be tested for this variant.

The Toronto Protocol and Its Survival Result

On 1 January 2004 researchers introduced a surveillance schedule built on physical exams, biochemical tests and imaging: whole-body, brain and breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, abdominal and pelvic ultrasound, and colonoscopy. Carriers chose whether to take part, and that choice is the basis of the comparison.

The first report came in 2011. Of 33 carriers in eight families, 18 chose surveillance. It found ten tumors without symptoms in seven people, all of whom were alive after a median of 24 months. In the other group, 12 high-grade, high-stage tumors developed in 10 people, and two of those ten were alive at the end of follow-up. Three-year survival was 100% against 21%.

The 2016 update covered 89 carriers in 39 unrelated families, at three centres in Canada and the United States. Forty agreed to surveillance, 49 did not, and 19 later crossed over, for 59 people under surveillance for a median of 32 months.

The surveillance arm also recorded two cancers that appeared between scans, and two biopsies that turned out not to be tumors.

This result is the foundation of today's guidance, and it comes with limits that its own design makes visible. It was not randomized. People chose their group and could change it, and the survival analysis used an as-treated approach. In general, finding a tumor earlier can lengthen survival measured from diagnosis even if death does not come later, and slow-growing tumors are more likely to be caught by a scheduled test. The 2021 Japanese guideline notes that crossing over was permitted, that further follow-up might be needed, and that the efficacy of surveillance in reducing cancer deaths "has not been verified". It lists false positives, overdiagnosis, adverse events from sedation used for imaging and psychological effects as disadvantages. An economic model from 2019, using United States prices from 2015, estimated 27 life-years with surveillance and 23 without, at $17,125 per added life-year; that is a modelled estimate rather than a measured outcome.

Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging Results

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scans a person from head to toe in one session, with no ionizing radiation. This matters for a condition in which radiation is itself a concern. For a general look at this scan in people without a known high risk, see the Full-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging page.

The studies read together give a consistent picture. A first scan finds a new cancer in roughly 6 to 7 of every 100 carriers. Many other findings prove benign, and the follow-up tests they trigger are a real burden, though in adults they fall after the first scan. The scan also misses cancers, so it does not replace other tests: in the 2025 prospective study, 22 of the 37 cancers were not found on the scan, and 13 of them were of kinds it would not be expected to detect. A 2018 report from a clinic in Texas found that three further tumors had been missed on first review of the initial scan. The scan is weak for the pancreas, finding abnormalities at the lowest rate of any method compared in a 2025 report.

The pooled analyses count cancers found, not deaths prevented. None of the studies above randomized people to scanning or to no scanning.

The method is still being refined. A study in 113 people reported in 2026 that a shorter protocol with no contrast agent could have shown every new malignant lesion. The European guideline cautions about gadolinium contrast because it may stay in organs for months or years, and it lists whole-body scans without it, while keeping contrast for at least the first brain scan. On the emotional side, the United Kingdom study reported that scanning was acceptable to participants, with high satisfaction and low levels of psychological illness. Carriers nevertheless reported more worry and intrusive thoughts about cancer than controls throughout, and the authors noted that some carriers seriously underestimated their risk.

Radiation Exposure Findings

Because p53 acts when DNA is damaged, radiation has been a concern from the beginning. The 1988 report already linked six second cancers to radiotherapy. The strongest direct evidence is in mice, and the human studies are small and do not fully agree.

• In mice, 2018: among 208 mice, X-rays and the chemotherapy drug etoposide greatly raised tumor risk in the two groups of animals with altered p53 (hazard ratios 4.4 and 4.7). The drug docetaxel, which does not damage DNA in the same way, had no effect on tumor development.
• French case series, 2010: of eight women whose first cancer was breast cancer, six had radiotherapy. Those six had 3 same-side breast recurrences, 3 breast cancers on the other side, 2 radiation-linked cancers and 3 new primary cancers. Among the two with no radiotherapy, there was one event. The numbers are very small.
• United States breast cancer series, 2020: of 18 women treated with curative radiotherapy, followed for a median of 12.5 years, one developed thyroid cancer and one a sarcoma in the radiation field (6% each). That was above a control group, and well below the 33% radiation-linked sarcoma risk reported in earlier literature. The authors concluded that the syndrome may not be an absolute bar to radiotherapy for breast cancer.
• United States registry, 2020: 7 of 14 people given curative radiotherapy (50%) developed a later cancer, against 46% of those without it. Four of the seven were in the treated area and matched the first tumor under the microscope, which the authors read as recurrence rather than radiation-caused cancer.
• United Kingdom childhood series, 2025: among 47 children with a solid cancer before age 16, median time to a second cancer was 13.3 years after radiotherapy and 25.1 years without it (hazard ratio 7.9), and median survival was 9.7 against 29.2 years. The authors describe an association from a retrospective case review, not a randomized comparison.

The European guideline states that radiotherapy and DNA-damaging chemotherapy contribute to later primary tumors, and that subsequent tumors may occur in more than 40% of carriers. It calls for gene testing before cancer treatment begins, so that surgery can come first and carriers can be spared radiotherapy and DNA-damaging chemotherapy where possible. The Japanese guideline says the same of radiation exposure and alkylating drugs, while noting that those treatments are still sometimes needed. Whether routine imaging using low radiation doses such as X-rays and computed tomography adds measurable risk for carriers was not addressed by the records read for this page.

Published Surveillance Guideline Statements

A 2016 expert meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research concluded that existing data were enough to recommend offering surveillance to all patients as soon as a clinical or genetic diagnosis is made, using a modified Toronto protocol. Its 2025 update, from a 2023 meeting, calls the Toronto protocol the current standard for lifelong surveillance, suggests changes to which tests are used on which organs at which ages, and adds more detail on adults. The text below reports the panels' statements, and the schedules differ from one to another.

The European panel graded its statements, with breast scanning and child ultrasound strong and urine steroid tests weak. It reserves testing of children for situations where childhood cancer is a real possibility in that family, because of the burden and uncertain benefits of surveillance in childhood. The Japanese guideline adds that no drug has been confirmed effective, and lists steering clear of alcohol, smoking, ultraviolet light, radiation and carcinogens among usual cancer-prevention measures.

Metformin and Other Prevention Research by Evidence Type

No drug has been shown to prevent cancer in people with this condition. A 2025 review states that none is approved for it. The research below is sorted by the kind of evidence, because the kinds are far from equal.

• Human physiology, 2013: family members with the change had more oxygen-based energy production in skeletal muscle than relatives without it and healthy volunteers. This observation is part of the reasoning behind the metformin research.
• Mouse study with small human pilot, 2017: disrupting mitochondrial respiration, by genetic or drug means, improved cancer-free survival in a mouse model. In a small pilot, patients on metformin showed lower mitochondrial activity. This did not measure cancers in people.
• Human safety pilot, 2020: 26 adults without diabetes took metformin for 14 weeks. Diarrhea affected 50.0% and nausea 46.2%; lactic acidosis did not occur and fasting glucose did not change. The study measured safety and metabolism, not cancer.
• Randomized trial, results not yet found: the published protocol of an open-label phase II trial, registered in 2022, plans to randomize 224 adults aged 16 and over to metformin plus yearly scans, or to yearly scans alone, for up to 5 years, measuring cancer-free survival. It notes a parallel study at the National Cancer Institute. No results from this trial appeared in the records searched for this page.
• Mouse study, rapamycin, 2012: in mice lacking one p53 copy, rapamycin in drinking water extended mean lifespan by 10%, and by 28% when started early, and lowered spontaneous tumors. No human result was found.
• Survey, diet and activity, 2022: a German study of 70 carriers and 43 relatives recorded diet, exercise, smoking and alcohol. It describes behavior, and did not test whether these habits change cancer rates in carriers.
• Surgery, patient-reported outcomes, 2025: among 90 women at one institution, 53 had risk-reducing mastectomy and 37 chose surveillance. The authors describe the survival benefit as unclear, and those having surgery reported worse breast satisfaction and physical well-being scores. Surgical complications and further reconstruction were linked with worse scores.
• Blood tests in development: a blood DNA pattern model predicted cancer before age 6 with 91% accuracy in an outside test group of 79 people, and fragments of DNA in blood showed patterns that separated carriers from controls. These are early research tools, and they do not prevent cancer.

A 2024 review points to the same conclusion, describing repurposed drugs as having shown potential and calling for prevention to complement early detection.

What Is Not Known

• Whether scanning lowers death rates in a randomized comparison. The survival evidence rests on the Toronto comparison of people who chose their group, and no randomized surveillance trial appeared in the records read here.
• How often overdiagnosis happens. Some low-grade or premalignant lesions were counted among tumors found, and how many would ever have caused harm has not been measured.
• Individual risk. A carrier's own age of onset and cancer type cannot yet be predicted. A 2017 review states that efforts to predict them have not found clinical use.
• True penetrance across all variants. Estimates vary widely by how families were found, and a 2026 paper says that the risk figures for atypical variants are still to be defined.
• The size of the radiation effect in people. Human series are small and point in different directions, and the most direct evidence comes from mice.
• Whether metformin prevents cancer in carriers. Only safety and metabolic data in people were found.
• Why some families with the classic pattern have no TP53 change. About a quarter of them have no identified cause in this gene.
• Reproductive health. A 2026 review found an absence of data on contraception, fertility preservation, pregnancy and menopause in women carrying these changes.
• Why place of residence seemed to change R337H risk in Paraná. The factor behind the difference between farming and industrial regions has not been identified in the report read here.

Key Research Papers

1. Li FP, Fraumeni JF Jr. Soft-tissue sarcomas, breast cancer, and other neoplasms. A familial syndrome? Ann Intern Med. 1969;71(4):747-52. PubMed PMID: 5360287
2. Li FP, Fraumeni JF Jr, Mulvihill JJ, Blattner WA, Dreyfus MG, Tucker MA, et al. A cancer family syndrome in twenty-four kindreds. Cancer Res. 1988;48(18):5358-62. PubMed PMID: 3409256
3. Malkin D, Li FP, Strong LC, Fraumeni JF Jr, Nelson CE, Kim DH, et al. Germ line p53 mutations in a familial syndrome of breast cancer, sarcomas, and other neoplasms. Science. 1990;250(4985):1233-8. PubMed PMID: 1978757
4. Srivastava S, Zou ZQ, Pirollo K, Blattner W, Chang EH. Germ-line transmission of a mutated p53 gene in a cancer-prone family with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Nature. 1990;348(6303):747-9. PubMed PMID: 2259385
5. Birch JM, Hartley AL, Tricker KJ, Prosser J, Condie A, Kelsey AM, et al. Prevalence and diversity of constitutional mutations in the p53 gene among 21 Li-Fraumeni families. Cancer Res. 1994;54(5):1298-304. PubMed PMID: 8118819
6. Guha T, Malkin D. Inherited TP53 Mutations and the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2017;7(4):a026187. PubMed PMID: 28270529
7. Frebourg T, Bajalica Lagercrantz S, Oliveira C, Magenheim R, Evans DG, European Reference Network GENTURIS. Guidelines for the Li-Fraumeni and heritable TP53-related cancer syndromes. Eur J Hum Genet. 2020;28(10):1379-1386. PubMed PMID: 32457520
8. Renaux-Petel M, Charbonnier F, Théry JC, Fermey P, Lienard G, Bou J, et al. Contribution of de novo and mosaic TP53 mutations to Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Med Genet. 2018;55(3):173-180. PubMed PMID: 29070607
9. Kumamoto T, Yamazaki F, Nakano Y, Tamura C, Tashiro S, Hattori H, et al. Medical guidelines for Li-Fraumeni syndrome 2019, version 1.1. Int J Clin Oncol. 2021;26(12):2161-2178. PubMed PMID: 34633580
10. Bougeard G, Renaux-Petel M, Flaman JM, Charbonnier C, Fermey P, Belotti M, et al. Revisiting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome From TP53 Mutation Carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(21):2345-52. PubMed PMID: 26014290
11. Mai PL, Best AF, Peters JA, DeCastro RM, Khincha PP, Loud JT, 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):3673-3681. PubMed PMID: 27496084
12. Fortuno C, Feng BJ, Carroll C, Innella G, Kohlmann W, Lázaro C, et al. Cancer Risks Associated With TP53 Pathogenic Variants: Maximum Likelihood Analysis of Extended Pedigrees for Diagnosis of First Cancers Beyond the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Spectrum. JCO Precis Oncol. 2024;8:e2300453. PubMed PMID: 38412388
13. Hwang SJ, Lozano G, Amos CI, Strong LC. Germline p53 mutations in a cohort with childhood sarcoma: sex differences in cancer risk. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(4):975-83. PubMed PMID: 12610779
14. Wu CC, Shete S, Amos CI, Strong LC. Joint effects of germ-line p53 mutation and sex on cancer risk in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Cancer Res. 2006;66(16):8287-92. PubMed PMID: 16912210
15. Fernandes CJ, Du YK, Naumer A, Kagami LA, Le A, Good M, et al. Pancreatic Cancer Risk and Screening Outcomes in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Pancreas. 2025;54(7):e618-e623. PubMed PMID: 40009039
16. de Andrade KC, Frone MN, Wegman-Ostrosky T, Khincha PP, Kim J, Amadou A, et al. Variable population prevalence estimates of germline TP53 variants: A gnomAD-based analysis. Hum Mutat. 2019;40(1):97-105. PubMed PMID: 30352134
17. Rocca V, Blandino G, D'Antona L, Iuliano R, Di Agostino S. Li-Fraumeni Syndrome: Mutation of TP53 Is a Biomarker of Hereditary Predisposition to Tumor: New Insights and Advances in the Treatment. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(15):3664. PubMed PMID: 35954327
18. Chompret A, Abel A, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Brugiéres L, Pagés S, Feunteun J, et al. Sensitivity and predictive value of criteria for p53 germline mutation screening. J Med Genet. 2001;38(1):43-7. PubMed PMID: 11332399
19. Tinat J, Bougeard G, Baert-Desurmont S, Vasseur S, Martin C, Bouvignies E, et al. 2009 version of the Chompret criteria for Li Fraumeni syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):e108-9; author reply e110. PubMed PMID: 19652052
20. Gonzalez KD, Noltner KA, Buzin CH, Gu D, Wen-Fong CY, Nguyen VQ, et al. Beyond Li Fraumeni Syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1250-6. PubMed PMID: 19204208
21. Matzenbacher Bittar C, de Araújo Rocha YM, Vieira IA, Rosset C, Andreis TF, Sartor ITS, et al. Clinical and molecular characterization of patients fulfilling Chompret criteria for Li-Fraumeni syndrome in Southern Brazil. PLoS One. 2021;16(9):e0251639. PubMed PMID: 34529667
22. Corredor JL, Li R, Dodd-Eaton EB, Casey J, Woodson AH, Nguyen NH, et al. Performance of LFSPRO prediction in TP53 mutation status for prospectively collected probands. Am J Hum Genet. 2026;113(5):1024-1035. PubMed PMID: 41990740
23. Kratz CP, Freycon C, Maxwell KN, Nichols KE, Schiffman JD, Evans DG, et al. Analysis of the Li-Fraumeni Spectrum Based on an International Germline TP53 Variant Data Set: An International Agency for Research on Cancer TP53 Database Analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(12):1800-1805. PubMed PMID: 34709361
24. Ribeiro RC, Sandrini F, Figueiredo B, Zambetti GP, Michalkiewicz E, Lafferty AR, et al. An inherited p53 mutation that contributes in a tissue-specific manner to pediatric adrenal cortical carcinoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(16):9330-5. PubMed PMID: 11481490
25. Paskulin DD, Giacomazzi J, Achatz MI, Costa S, Reis RM, Hainaut P, et al. Ancestry of the Brazilian TP53 c.1010G>A (p.Arg337His, R337H) Founder Mutation: Clues from Haplotyping of Short Tandem Repeats on Chromosome 17p. PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0143262. PubMed PMID: 26618902
26. Palmero EI, Schüler-Faccini L, Caleffi M, Achatz MI, Olivier M, Martel-Planche G, et al. Detection of R337H, a germline TP53 mutation predisposing to multiple cancers, in asymptomatic women participating in a breast cancer screening program in Southern Brazil. Cancer Lett. 2008;261(1):21-5. PubMed PMID: 18248785
27. Custódio G, Parise GA, Kiesel Filho N, Komechen H, Sabbaga CC, Rosati R, et al. Impact of neonatal screening and surveillance for the TP53 R337H mutation on early detection of childhood adrenocortical tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(20):2619-26. PubMed PMID: 23733769
28. Costa TEJ, Gerber VKQ, Ibañez HC, Melanda VS, Parise IZS, Watanabe FM, et al. Penetrance of the TP53 R337H Mutation and Pediatric Adrenocortical Carcinoma Incidence Associated with Environmental Influences in a 12-Year Observational Cohort in Southern Brazil. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(11):1804. PubMed PMID: 31744167
29. Galante PAF, Guardia GDA, Pisani J, Sandoval RL, Barros-Filho MC, Gifoni ACLVC, et al. Personalized screening strategies for TP53 R337H carriers: a retrospective cohort study of tumor spectrum in Li-Fraumeni syndrome adult carriers. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2025;42:100982. PubMed PMID: 39895904
30. Kratz CP, Frone MN, Khincha PP, Hatton JN, Penkert J, James PA, et al. Urgent need to recognize that Disease-Causing TP53 variants with atypical penetrance require distinct clinical recommendations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2026:djag015. PubMed PMID: 41577833
31. Villani A, Tabori U, Schiffman J, Shlien A, Beyene J, Druker H, 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. PubMed PMID: 21601526
32. Villani A, Shore A, Wasserman JD, Stephens D, Kim RH, Druker H, 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. PubMed PMID: 27501770
33. Tak CR, Biltaji E, Kohlmann W, Maese L, Hainaut P, Villani A, et al. Cost-effectiveness of early cancer surveillance for patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2019;66(5):e27629. PubMed PMID: 30719841
34. Ballinger ML, Best A, Mai PL, Khincha PP, Loud JT, Peters JA, et al. Baseline Surveillance in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Using Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1634-1639. PubMed PMID: 28772291
35. Temperley HC, O'Sullivan NJ, Mac Curtain BM, Qian W, Temperley TS, Murray A, et al. Whole-Body MRI Screening for Carriers of Germline TP53 Mutations-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2024;13(5):1223. PubMed PMID: 38592011
36. Dacoregio MI, Abrahão Reis PC, Gonçalves Celso DS, Romero LE, Altmayer S, Vilbert M, et al. Baseline surveillance in Li Fraumeni syndrome using whole-body MRI: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2025;35(2):643-651. PubMed PMID: 39075300
37. Mai PL, Khincha PP, Loud JT, DeCastro RM, Bremer RC, Peters JA, et al. Prevalence of Cancer at Baseline Screening in the National Cancer Institute Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Cohort. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(12):1640-1645. PubMed PMID: 28772286
38. Saya S, Killick E, Thomas S, Taylor N, Bancroft EK, Rothwell J, et al. Baseline results from the UK SIGNIFY study: a whole-body MRI screening study in TP53 mutation carriers and matched controls. Fam Cancer. 2017;16(3):433-440. PubMed PMID: 28091804
39. Kagami LAT, Du YK, Fernandes CJ, Le AN, Good M, Duvall MM, et al. Rates of Intervention and Cancer Detection on Initial versus Subsequent Whole-body MRI Screening in Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2023;16(9):507-512. PubMed PMID: 37428016
40. Sodde P, Hyder Z, Pugh S, Lalloo F, Martin R, Soh C, et al. Evaluation of whole-body MRI for cancer early detection in Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Med Genet. 2025;62(10):624-627. PubMed PMID: 40588398
41. Maoz A, Chen N, Umaretiya P, Cahill SR, Schwartz-Levine A, Jagannathan J, et al. Prospective Study of Annual Whole-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Part of a Multimodality Screening Program for Individuals With Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. JCO Precis Oncol. 2025;9:e2500264. PubMed PMID: 41129770
42. Finn E, Sohaib A, Withey SJ, Sardo Infirri S, Bunce C, Clarke CS, et al. SIGNIFIED: whole-body MRI screening in Li-Fraumeni syndrome in the UK. ESMO Open. 2026;11(3):106045. PubMed PMID: 41740205
43. Bojadzieva J, Amini B, Day SF, Jackson TL, Thomas PS, Willis BJ, et al. Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and brain MRI baseline surveillance in TP53 germline mutation carriers: experience from the Li-Fraumeni Syndrome Education and Early Detection (LEAD) clinic. Fam Cancer. 2018;17(2):287-294. PubMed PMID: 28988289
44. Keymling MM, Kurz FT, Kuder TA, Bickelhaupt S, Hielscher T, Hog R, et al. Optimizing whole-body MRI for early cancer detection in Li-Fraumeni syndrome: a prospective bicentric study. Eur Radiol. 2026;36(4):2401-2412. PubMed PMID: 41117823
45. Bancroft EK, Saya S, Brown E, Thomas S, Taylor N, Rothwell J, et al. Psychosocial effects of whole-body MRI screening in adult high-risk pathogenic TP53 mutation carriers: a case-controlled study (SIGNIFY). J Med Genet. 2020;57(4):226-236. PubMed PMID: 31719169
46. Kasper E, Angot E, Colasse E, Nicol L, Sabourin JC, Adriouch S, et al. Contribution of genotoxic anticancer treatments to the development of multiple primary tumours in the context of germline TP53 mutations. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:254-262. PubMed PMID: 30072235
47. Heymann S, Delaloge S, Rahal A, Caron O, Frebourg T, Barreau L, et al. Radio-induced malignancies after breast cancer postoperative radiotherapy in patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Radiat Oncol. 2010;5:104. PubMed PMID: 21059199
48. Le AN, Harton J, Desai H, Powers J, Zelley K, Bradbury AR, et al. Frequency of radiation-induced malignancies post-adjuvant radiotherapy for breast cancer in patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;181(1):181-188. PubMed PMID: 32246378
49. Hendrickson PG, Luo Y, Kohlmann W, Schiffman J, Maese L, Bishop AJ, et al. Radiation therapy and secondary malignancy in Li-Fraumeni syndrome: A hereditary cancer registry study. Cancer Med. 2020;9(21):7954-7963. PubMed PMID: 32931654
50. Woodward ER, Kilday JP, Ng S, Kelsey A, Evans DGR. Radiotherapy results in decreased time to second cancer in children with Li Fraumeni syndrome. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2025;117(10):2120-2123. PubMed PMID: 40059635
51. Kratz CP, Achatz MI, Brugières L, Frebourg T, Garber JE, Greer MC, et al. Cancer Screening Recommendations for Individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23(11):e38-e45. PubMed PMID: 28572266
52. Achatz MI, Villani A, Bertuch AA, Bougeard G, Chang VY, Doria AS, et al. Update on Cancer Screening Recommendations for Individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Clin Cancer Res. 2025;31(10):1831-1840. PubMed PMID: 40072304
53. Lee JW. Li-Fraumeni Syndrome : Current Strategies and Future Perspectives. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2025;68(3):305-310. PubMed PMID: 40289692
54. Wang PY, Ma W, Park JY, Celi FS, Arena R, Choi JW, et al. Increased oxidative metabolism in the Li-Fraumeni syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(11):1027-32. PubMed PMID: 23484829
55. Wang PY, Li J, Walcott FL, Kang JG, Starost MF, Talagala SL, et al. Inhibiting mitochondrial respiration prevents cancer in a mouse model of Li-Fraumeni syndrome. J Clin Invest. 2017;127(1):132-136. PubMed PMID: 27869650
56. Walcott FL, Wang PY, Bryla CM, Huffstutler RD, Singh N, Pollak MN, et al. Pilot Study Assessing Tolerability and Metabolic Effects of Metformin in Patients With Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020;4(6):pkaa063. PubMed PMID: 33490865
57. Dixon-Zegeye M, Shaw R, Collins L, Perez-Smith K, Ooms A, Qiao M, et al. Cancer Precision-Prevention trial of Metformin in adults with Li Fraumeni syndrome (MILI) undergoing yearly MRI surveillance: a randomised controlled trial protocol. Trials. 2024;25(1):103. PubMed PMID: 38308321
58. Komarova EA, Antoch MP, Novototskaya LR, Chernova OB, Paszkiewicz G, Leontieva OV, et al. Rapamycin extends lifespan and delays tumorigenesis in heterozygous p53+/- mice. Aging (Albany NY). 2012;4(10):709-14. PubMed PMID: 23123616
59. Nees J, Kiermeier S, Struewe F, Keymling M, Maatouk I, Kratz CP, et al. Health Behavior and Cancer Prevention among Adults with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome and Relatives in Germany-A Cohort Description. Curr Oncol. 2022;29(10):7768-7778. PubMed PMID: 36290891
60. Polidorio N, Sandoval RL, Bioni P, Pisani J, Achatz MI. Optimizing shared decision-making for risk-reducing mastectomy in women with Li-Fraumeni syndrome using patient-reported outcome measures. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):19449. PubMed PMID: 40461682
61. Subasri V, Brew B, Laverty B, Erdman L, Guha T, Hansford JR, et al. Peripheral blood DNA methylation predicts the early onset of primary tumor in TP53 mutation carriers. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):7976. PubMed PMID: 40858599
62. Wong D, Tageldein M, Luo P, Ensminger E, Bruce J, Oldfield L, et al. Cell-free DNA from germline TP53 mutation carriers reflect cancer-like fragmentation patterns. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):7386. PubMed PMID: 39191772
63. Giovino C, Subasri V, Telfer F, Malkin D. New Paradigms in the Clinical Management of Li-Fraumeni Syndrome. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2024;14(11):a041584. PubMed PMID: 38692744
64. Halpern N, Bernstein-Molho R, Peerless Y, Kventsel I, Frenkel Z, Mizrachi Y, et al. Women's health across the reproductive lifespan in women with germline TP53 pathogenic variants: a clinical perspective. Oncologist. 2026;31(7):oyag212. PubMed PMID: 42275193

PubMed Topic Searches

1. PubMed: Li-Fraumeni syndrome and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging
2. PubMed: Li-Fraumeni syndrome surveillance guidelines
3. PubMed: TP53 R337H in Brazil
4. PubMed: Li-Fraumeni syndrome and radiotherapy
5. PubMed: Li-Fraumeni syndrome and metformin

Connections

• Oncology — the parent section on cancers
• Osteosarcoma — the bone cancer seen in many of these families
• Adrenocortical Carcinoma — the childhood adrenal cancer central to the Brazilian story
• Soft Tissue Sarcoma — the cancer type in the original 1969 report
• Breast Cancer — the most common adult cancer in female carriers
• Brain Cancer — another core cancer of the condition
• Full-Body Magnetic Resonance Imaging — the evidence on this scan more widely
• Metformin — the drug under study for prevention
• The Cell Cycle and How Cancer Hijacks It — an animation of the checkpoints p53 helps guard

Featured Videos