Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Pancreatic cancer is an uncommon cancer with an age-adjusted annual incidence of 12.9 cases per 100 000 person-years. However, the death rate is 11.0 deaths per 100 000 person-years because the prognosis of pancreatic cancer is poor. Although its incidence is low, pancreatic cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in the United States. Because of the increasing incidence of pancreatic cancer, along with improvements in early detection and treatment of other types of cancer, it is estimated that pancreatic cancer may soon become the second-leading cause of cancer death in the United States. Objective: To update the 2004 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for pancreatic cancer. Evidence Review: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic cancer, the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests for pancreatic cancer, and the benefits and harms of treatment of screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic cancer. Findings: The USPSTF found no evidence that screening for pancreatic cancer or treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer improves disease-specific morbidity or mortality, or all-cause mortality. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults can be bounded as no greater than small. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that the magnitude of the harms of screening for pancreatic cancer and treatment of screen-detected pancreatic cancer can be bounded as at least moderate. The USPSTF reaffirms its previous conclusion that the potential benefits of screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults do not outweigh the potential harms. Conclusions and Recommendation: The USPSTF recommends against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults. (D recommendation).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The US Prevention and Screening Task Force recommends that any screening efforts be focused on well-defined high-risk cohorts, such as patients with germline mutation in PDAC predisposition genes.
“In light of this, the US Prevention and Screening Task Force instead recommends that any screening efforts be focused on well-defined high-risk cohorts, such as patients with germline mutation in PDAC predisposition genes.”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
The Patient Population Under Consideration section limits the USPSTF recommendation to asymptomatic adults not known to be at high risk and recommends against screening them. The Response to Public Comment section explicitly says people with inherited genetic syndromes associated with high pancreatic-cancer risk are outside the recommendation’s scope; it does not recommend screening those cohorts instead. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredScreening in the asymptomatic population is not recommended due to the economic burden and the relatively low incidence of PC in the general population.
“However, screening in the asymptomatic population is not recommended due to the economic burden and the relatively low incidence of PC in the general population 21,22.”
From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [21]
The Patient Population Under Consideration section recommends against screening asymptomatic adults not known to be at high risk, and Benefits of Detection and Early Treatment cites low incidence as one reason the expected benefit is small. The paper does not give economic burden as a reason; its Abstract explicitly says the USPSTF does not consider costs when making this assessment. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe recommendation against general population screening is based on the relative infrequency of PDAC in the general population (~13 cases per 100,000) and the potential for identifying a large number of false-positives, even with a relatively "perfect" biomarker.
“This recommendation is based on the relative infrequency of PDAC in the general population (~13 cases per 100,000) and the potential for identifying a large number of false-positives, even with a relatively “perfect” biomarker, let alone CA 19-9.”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn 2019, the US Prevention and Screening Task Force explicitly recommended against screening for PDAC in the general population.
“At the same time, in 2019, the US Prevention and Screening Task Force explicitly recommended against screening for PDAC in the general population.34”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
CA 19-9 carries an overall sensitivity in the range of 25% to 50% in early-stage disease, and its levels can be elevated in nonneoplastic conditions such as benign biliary obstruction.
“Unfortunately, CA 19-9 carries an overall sensitivity in the range of 25% to 50% in early-stage disease, and conversely, the levels of CA 19-9 can be elevated in nonneoplastic conditions, such as benign biliary obstruction.32,33”
From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The Screening Tests section says there are no accurate, validated biomarkers for early pancreatic-cancer detection, but it gives no CA 19-9 sensitivity range. The Accuracy of Screening Tests section discusses imaging tests, not CA 19-9; searches for CA 19-9 and benign biliary obstruction found no passage addressing the claimed elevation in that condition. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Current guidelines advise against screening the general population for PDAC and instead emphasize biomarker studies in well-defined high-risk cohorts.
“current guidelines advise against screening the general population and instead emphasize biomarker studies be focused on well-defined high-risk cohorts44.”
From Pancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [44]
The average lifetime risk of pancreatic cancer in the USA, about 1 in 64, is too low for population-based screening.
“The average lifetime risk of developing pancreatic cancer (~1 in 64 in the USA) is too low for population-based screening.”
Other common cancers have a prevalence of diabetes similar to that in people without cancer.
“This concern does not apply to other common cancers, where the prevalence of diabetes is similar to that in people without cancer.51”
From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Frequent detection of pancreatic lesions in asymptomatic high-risk individuals
Canto, M. I., Hruban, R. H., Fishman, E. K., Kamel, I. R., Schulick, R., Zhang, Z., Topazian, M., Takahashi, N., Fletcher, J., Petersen, G., et al. (2012) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.01.005 · Cited by 648 · see citing works
Early Detection of Sporadic Pancreatic Cancer: Summative Review
Chari, S. T., Kelly, K., Hollingsworth, M. A., Thayer, S. P., Ahlquist, D. A., Andersen, D. K., Batra, S. K., Brentnall, T. A., Canto, M., Cleeter, D. F., et al. (2015) · Pancreas · doi:10.1097/mpa.0000000000000368 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Harinck, F., Konings, I. C. A. W., Kluijt, I., Poley, J. W., van Hooft, J. E., van Dullemen, H. M., Nio, C. Y., Krak, N. C., Hermans, J. J., Aalfs, C. M., et al. (2016) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308008 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
A systematic review of serum autoantibodies as biomarkers for pancreatic cancer detection
Dumstrei, K., Chen, H., & Brenner, H. (2016) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.7098 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- Rahib L, Smith BD, Aizenberg R, Rosenzweig AB, Fleshman JM, Matrisian LM. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014;74(11):2913-2921. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0155 · DOI · Paper page
- Hruban RH, Canto MI, Goggins M, Schulick R, Klein AP. Update on familial pancreatic cancer. Adv Surg. 2010;44:293-311. doi:10.1016/j.yasu. 2010.05.011 · DOI
- Kamisawa T, Wood LD, Itoi T, Takaori K. Pancreatic cancer. Lancet. 2016;388(10039):73-85. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00141-0 · DOI · Paper page
- Klein AP. Genetic susceptibility to pancreatic cancer. Mol Carcinog. 2012;51(1):14-24. doi:10.1002/ mc.20855 · DOI
- Chang JC, Kundranda M. Novel diagnostic and predictive biomarkers in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(3):E667. doi:10.3390/ijms18030667 · DOI
- Loosen SH, Neumann UP, Trautwein C, Roderburg C, Luedde T. Current and future biomarkers for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Tumour Biol. 2017;39(6):1010428317692231. doi:10.1177/ 1010428317692231 · DOI
- Choe JW, Kim JS, Kim HJ, et al. Value of early check-up of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 levels for pancreatic cancer screening in asymptomatic new-onset diabetic patients. Pancreas. 2016;45(5): 730-734. doi:10.1097/MPA.0000000000000538 · DOI
- Herreros-Villanueva M, Bujanda L. Non-invasive biomarkers in pancreatic cancer diagnosis: what we need versus what we have. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4 (7):134. doi:10.21037/atm.2016.03.44 · DOI
- Henrikson NB, Aiello Bowles EJ, Blasi PR, et al. Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force: Evidence Synthesis No. 181. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019. AHRQ publication 19-05250-EF-1.
- Henrikson NB, Aiello Bowles EJ, Blasi PR, et al. Screening for pancreatic cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [published August 6, 2019]. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.6190 · DOI · Paper page
- Joergensen MT, Gerdes AM, Sorensen J, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell O, Mortensen MB. Is screening for pancreatic cancer in high-risk groups cost-effective? experience from a Danish national screening program. Pancreatology. 2016;16(4):584- 592. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2016.03.013 · DOI
- Al-Sukhni W, Borgida A, Rothenmund H, et al. Screening for pancreatic cancer in a high-risk cohort: an eight-year experience. J Gastrointest Surg. 2012;16(4):771-783. doi:10.1007/s11605-011-1781-6 · DOI
- Schneider R, Slater EP, Sina M, et al. German national case collection for familial pancreatic cancer (FaPaCa): ten years experience. Fam Cancer. 2011;10(2):323-330. doi:10.1007/ s10689-010-9414-x · DOI · Paper page
- Verna EC, Hwang C, Stevens PD, et al. Pancreatic cancer screening in a prospective cohort of high-risk patients: a comprehensive strategy of imaging and genetics. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(20): 5028-5037. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-3209 · DOI · Paper page
- Ludwig E, Olson SH, Bayuga S, et al. Feasibility and yield of screening in relatives from familial pancreatic cancer families. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106(5):946-954. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.65 · DOI
- Poley JW, Kluijt I, Gouma DJ, et al. The yield of first-time endoscopic ultrasonography in screening individuals at a high risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(9):2175-2181. doi:10.1038/ajg.2009.276 · DOI · Paper page
- Canto MI, Goggins M, Yeo CJ, et al. Screening for pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: an EUS-based approach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2(7):606-621. doi:10.1016/S1542-3565(04) 00244-7 · DOI · Paper page
- Canto MI, Goggins M, Hruban RH, et al. Screening for early pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: a prospective controlled study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4(6):766-781. doi:10. 1016/j.cgh.2006.02.005 · DOI · Paper page
- Shin EJ, Topazian M, Goggins MG, et al. Linear-array EUS improves detection of pancreatic lesions in high-risk individuals: a randomized tandem study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(5):812- 818. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.028 · DOI
- Del Chiaro M, Verbeke CS, Kartalis N, et al. Short-term results of a magnetic resonance imaging-based Swedish screening program for individuals at risk for pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(6):512-518. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2014. 3852 · DOI
- Barnes CA, Krzywda E, Lahiff S, et al. Development of a high risk pancreatic screening clinic using 3.0 T MRI. Fam Cancer. 2018;17(1):101- 111. doi:10.1007/s10689-017-0057-z · DOI
- Gangi A, Malafa M, Klapman J. Endoscopic ultrasound-based pancreatic cancer screening of high-risk individuals: a prospective observational trial. Pancreas. 2018;47(5):586-591.
- Andea A, Sarkar F, Adsay VN. Clinicopathological correlates of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: a comparative analysis of 82 cases with and 152 cases without pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(10):996-1006. doi:10.1097/01.MP. 0000087422.24733.62 · DOI
- Konstantinidis IT, Vinuela EF, Tang LH, et al. Incidentally discovered pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: what is its clinical significance? Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(11):3643-3647. doi:10.1245/s10434- 013-3042-2 · DOI
- Sharib JM, Fonseca AL, Swords DS, et al. Surgical overtreatment of pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: do the 2017 International Consensus Guidelines improve clinical decision making? Surgery. 2018;164(6):1178-1184. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2018.07.014 · DOI · Paper page
- Tanaka M, Fernández-Del Castillo C, Kamisawa T, et al. Revisions of international consensus Fukuoka guidelines for the management of IPMN of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2017;17 (5):738-753. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2017.07.007 · DOI · Paper page
- Maheu C, Vodermaier A, Rothenmund H, et al. Pancreatic cancer risk counselling and screening: impact on perceived risk and psychological functioning. Fam Cancer. 2010;9(4):617-624. doi: 10.1007/s10689-010-9354-5 · DOI
- Konings IC, Sidharta GN, Harinck F, et al. Repeated participation in pancreatic cancer surveillance by high-risk individuals imposes low psychological burden. Psychooncology. 2016;25(8): 971-978. doi:10.1002/pon.4047 · DOI
- Kamphues C, Bova R, Schricke D, et al. Postoperative complications deteriorate long-term outcome in pancreatic cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(3):856-863. doi:10.1245/s10434- 011-2041-4 · DOI
- McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF, et al. Perioperative mortality for pancreatectomy: a national perspective. Ann Surg. 2007;246(2):246- 253. doi:10.1097/01.sla.0000259993.17350.3a · DOI
- Swanson RS, Pezzi CM, Mallin K, Loomis AM, Winchester DP. The 90-day mortality after pancreatectomy for cancer is double the 30-day mortality: more than 20,000 resections from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21 (13):4059-4067. doi:10.1245/s10434-014-4036-4 · DOI
- Syngal S, Brand RE, Church JM, Giardiello FM, Hampel HL, Burt RW; American College of Gastroenterology. ACG clinical guideline: genetic testing and management of hereditary gastrointestinal cancer syndromes. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(2):223-262. doi:10.1038/ajg. 2014.435 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Pancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges
Halbrook, C. J., Lyssiotis, C. A., Pasca di Magliano, M., & Maitra, A. (2023) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.02.014 · Cited by 1,321 · see citing works
Early detection of pancreatic cancer
Pereira, S. P., Oldfield, L., Ney, A., Hart, P. A., Keane, M. G., Pandol, S. J., Li, D., Greenhalf, W., Jeon, C. Y., Koay, E. J., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30416-9 · Cited by 482 · see citing works
Long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals
Overbeek, K. A., Levink, I. J. M., Koopmann, B. D. M., Harinck, F., Konings, I. C. A. W., Ausems, M. G. E. M., Wagner, A., Fockens, P., van Eijck, C. H., Groot Koerkamp, B., et al. (2022) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2020-323611 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review
Kenner, B., Chari, S. T., Kelsen, D., Klimstra, D. S., Pandol, S. J., Rosenthal, M., Rustgi, A. K., Taylor, J. A., Yala, A., Abul-Husn, N., et al. (2021) · Pancreas · doi:10.1097/mpa.0000000000001762 · Cited by 158 · see citing works
Diabetes, weight change, and pancreatic cancer risk
Yuan, C., Babic, A., Khalaf, N., Nowak, J. A., Brais, L. K., Rubinson, D. A., Ng, K., Aguirre, A. J., Pandharipande, P. V., Fuchs, C. S., et al. (2020) · JAMA Oncology · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.2948 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer
Huang, B., Huang, H., Zhang, S., Zhang, D., Shi, Q., Liu, J., & Guo, J. (2022) · Theranostics · doi:10.7150/thno.77949 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
“recommended due to the economic burden and the relatively low incidence of PC in the general population [21,22].”
Overbeek, K. A., Goggins, M. G., Dbouk, M., Levink, I. J. M., Koopmann, B. D. M., Chuidian, M., Konings, I. C. A. W., Paiella, S., Earl, J., Fockens, P., et al. (2022) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.014 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Klatte, D. C. F., Boekestijn, B., Wasser, M. N. J. M., Feshtali Shahbazi, S., Ibrahim, I. S., Mieog, J. S. D., Luelmo, S. A. C., Morreau, H., Potjer, T. P., Inderson, A., et al. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.22.00194 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Screening for Pancreatic Cancer
Lucas, A. L., & Kastrinos, F. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.9690 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Miura, S., Takikawa, T., Kikuta, K., Hamada, S., Kume, K., Yoshida, N., Tanaka, Y., Matsumoto, R., Ikeda, M., Kataoka, F., et al. (2021) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics11091693 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Liu, Y., Kaur, S., Huang, Y., Fahrmann, J. F., Rinaudo, J. A., Hanash, S. M., Batra, S. K., Singhi, A. D., Brand, R. E., Maitra, A., et al. (2020) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0161 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Nicola, M., Onorati, M., Albertoni, M. M., Bianchi, C. L., De Nucci, G., Mandelli, E. D., Nicola, L., & Di Nuovo, F. (2021) · Acta Cytologica · doi:10.1159/000510755 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- US Preventive Services Task Force, Owens, D. K., Davidson, K. W., Krist, A. H., Barry, M. J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Curry, S. J., Doubeni, C. A., Epling, J. W., Kubik, M., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Simon, M. A., Tseng, C.-W., & Wong, J. B.
- Affiliations
- VA Palo Alto Health Care System (US)
- Northwell Health (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of Iowa (US)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Carilion Clinic (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Boston University (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
- Tufts University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Owens, Douglas K.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2019-08-06
- Volume
- 322
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 438
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W2965010580
- Cited by
- 419
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 58 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 18.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
- Keywords
- pancreatic cancer, cancer screening, USPSTF recommendations, asymptomatic adults, screening benefits and harms, cancer mortality
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Pancreas, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Cost of Illness, Risk Assessment, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Early Detection of Cancer
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
