Couples coping with screening burden and diagnostic uncertainty in Li-Fraumeni syndrome: Connection versus independence.

PURPOSE: Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) is an inherited tumor predisposition syndrome with lifetime cancer risks approaching 100% and evolving risk-management strategies. This study evaluated couples' coping with LFS-related burdens. RESEARCH APPROACH: Constructivist grounded theory and anticipatory loss frameworks guided design and analysis. SAMPLE AND METHODS: Twenty-six individuals enrolled in the NCI LFS Family Study completed semi-structured interviews with their partner during annual screening visits. An interdisciplinary team completed open and focused coding to identify patterns of coping and adaptation. FINDINGS: Couples described living with ambiguous danger, a state of chronic apprehension resulting from LFS-associated uncertainties. Most couples communicated openly and alternated shouldering the burden, while others engaged in protective buffering to shield each other from distress and sustain the appearance of normalcy. INTERPRETATION: Optimally, coping reduces shared psychosocial distress, yet some strategies may inadvertently increase disconnection. IMPLICATIONS: Mental health support is critical for both partners coping with LFS, together and separately.

Gratitude, protective buffering, and cognitive dissonance: How families respond to pediatric whole exome sequencing in the absence of actionable results.

Clinical genome and exome sequencing (CGES) may identify variants leading to targeted management of existing conditions. Yet, CGES often fails to identify pathogenic diagnostic variants and introduces uncertainties by detecting variants of uncertain significance (VUS) and secondary findings. This study investigated how families understand findings and adjust their perspectives on CGES. As part of NIH's Clinical Sequencing Exploratory Research Consortium, children were recruited from clinics at the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP) and offered exome sequencing. Primary pathogenic and possibly pathogenic, and some secondary findings were returned. Investigators digitally recorded results disclosure sessions and conducted 3-month follow up interviews with 10 adolescents and a parent. An interdisciplinary team coded all transcripts. Participants were initially disappointed with findings, yet reactions evolved within disclosure sessions and at 3-month interviews toward acceptance and satisfaction. Families erroneously expected, and prepared extensively, to learn about risk for common conditions. During disclosure sessions, parents and adolescents varied in how they monitored and responded to each others reactions. Several misinterpreted, or overestimated, the utility of findings to attribute meaning and achieve closure for the CGES experience. Participants perceived testing as an opportunity to improve disease management despite results that did not introduce new treatments or diagnoses. Future research may examine whether families experience cognitive dissonance regarding discrepancies between expectations and findings, and how protective buffering minimizes the burden of disappointment on loved ones. As CGES is increasingly integrated into clinical care providers must contend with tempering family expectations and interpretations of findings while managing complex medical care.