Cited by 140Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Open access
Henrikson, Nora B., Aiello Bowles, Erin J., Blasi, Paula R., Morrison, Caitlin C., Nguyen, Matt, Pillarisetty, Venu G., Lin, Jennifer S.·2019·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the third most common cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, from January 2002 through April 27, 2018; surveillance through March 22, 2019. Study Selection: Studies of adults with or without risk factors for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (eg, family history of pancreatic cancer, personal history of new-onset diabetes) undergoing imaging-based screening; studies of treatment for adults with screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Included study designs were randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized controlled intervention studies, diagnostic accuracy studies with a reference standard, cohort studies, and case-control studies (for evaluation of harms only). Studies consisting entirely of populations with known genetic syndromes associated with pancreatic cancer were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and rated included studies for quality; data were quantitatively analyzed to calculate a pooled diagnostic yield and narratively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, morbidity, or quality of life; diagnostic accuracy of screening tests; any harm of screening or treatment. Results: Thirteen fair-quality prospective cohort screening studies (N = 1317) conducted predominantly in populations at high familial risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. No studies reported on the effect of screening on morbidity or mortality or on the effectiveness of treatment for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Although no studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests, all 13 studies reported the diagnostic yield. Yields ranged from 0 to 75 cases per 1000 persons in studies using endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computed tomography-based screening. In total, 18 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were detected in 1156 adults at increased familial risk and 0 cases were detected in 161 average-risk adults. In 8 studies (n = 675) assessing procedural harms of screening, no serious harms from initial screening were reported. Two studies (n = 271) found no evidence of psychosocial harms related to screening. Evidence of surgical harms was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: Imaging-based screening in groups at high familial risk can detect pancreatic adenocarcinoma with limited evidence of minimal harms. However, the effect of screening on morbidity and mortality in groups at high familial risk has not been studied, and no data are available in average-risk populations. There is limited evidence to assess benefits or harms of surgical intervention for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.6190

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In 2019, the US Preventative Services Task Force recommended against pancreas screening of asymptomatic average-risk adults and those with a family history, but it did not address the role of surveillance in germline mutation carriers.

    “In 2019, the US Preventative Services Task Force recommended against pancreas screening of asymptomatic average-risk adults and those with a family history, but it did not address the role of surveillance in germline mutation carriers.12,13”
  • Recent evidence indicates that pancreas surveillance can downstage pancreatic cancers diagnosed in high-risk individuals, though based on few studies.

    “Recent evidence indicates that pancreas surveillance can downstage pancreatic cancers diagnosed in high-risk individuals (HRIs), although this is based upon only a few studies,12,14-16 with relatively few PDACs diagnosed, and only a small percentage of which were diagnosed with stage I disease.17”
  • The US Preventive Services Task Force and other guidelines recommend against screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in asymptomatic adults at average risk.

    “The US Preventive Services Task Force and other guidelines recommend against screening for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in asymptomatic adults at average risk.6,53,54”

    From Early detection of pancreatic cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [53]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 140

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Henrikson NB, Bowles EJA, Blasi PR, et al. Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019.
  2. Hart SL, Torbit LA, Crangle CJ, et al. Moderators of cancer-related distress and worry after a pancreatic cancer genetic counseling and screening intervention. Psychooncology. 2012;21(12):1324-1330. doi:10.1002/pon.2026 · DOI
  3. 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

Authors
Henrikson, N. B., Aiello Bowles, E. J., Blasi, P. R., Morrison, C. C., Nguyen, M., Pillarisetty, V. G., & Lin, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Seattle
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research (US)
Corresponding author
Henrikson, Nora B.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-08-06
Volume
322
Issue
5
Pages
445
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W4254403825
Cited by
140
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 2
FWCI
1.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (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 screening, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, familial risk, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, diagnostic yield, screening harms, psychosocial harm, cancer mortality, USPSTF recommendations, quality of life, new-onset diabetes
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Pancreas, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Postoperative Complications, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, 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