Cited by 113Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Diagnostic Yield From Screening Asymptomatic Individuals at High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies

Open access
Corral, Juan E., Mareth, Karl F., Riegert-Johnson, Douglas L., Das, Ananya, Wallace, Michael B.·2019·Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Background & aims There have been few studies of abdominal imaging screening of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer (based on family history or genetic variants). We performed a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to determine the diagnostic yield and outcomes of abdominal imaging screening for asymptomatic individuals at high risk.Methods Through a systematic review of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings through July 2017, we identified prospective cohort studies (>20 patients) of asymptomatic adults determined to be at high-risk of pancreatic cancer (lifetime risk >5%, including specific genetic-associated conditions) who were screened by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to detect pancreatic lesions. Our primary outcome was identification of high-risk pancreatic lesions (high-grade pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, high-grade dysplasia, or adenocarcinoma) at initial screening, and overall incidence during follow up. Summary estimates were reported as incidence rates per 100 patient-years.Results We identified 19 studies comprising 7085 individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer; of these, 1660 patients were evaluated by EUS and/or MRI. Fifty-nine high-risk lesions were identified (43 adenocarcinomas: 28 during the initial exam and 15 during follow-up surveillance) and 257 patients underwent pancreatic surgery. Based on our meta-analysis, the overall diagnostic yield screening for high-risk pancreatic lesions was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.33-1.14), with moderate heterogeneity among studies. The number needed to screen to identify 1 patient with a high-risk lesion was 135 (95% CI, 88-303). The diagnostic yield was similar for patients with different genetic features that increased risk, and whether patients were screened by EUS or MRI.Conclusions Based on meta-analysis, 135 patients at high-risk for pancreatic cancer must be screened to identify 1 patient with a high-risk pancreatic lesion. Further studies are needed to determine whether screening reduces mortality and is cost effectiveness for individuals at high-risk of pancreatic cancer.

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 · 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.04.065

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • The five CAPS5 pancreatic resections for worrisome findings that harbored low-grade dysplasia only represent a smaller proportion of resections for low-grade lesions than reported in prior studies, likely due to better selection of patients for surgery.

    “it is notable that these five cases represent a smaller proportion of resections for low-grade lesions than has been reported in prior studies14,15,29,30 and likely results from better selection of patients for surgery.”
  • 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”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Ries Lage MP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, et al. SEER cancer sta- tistics review, 1975-2002. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Corral, J. E., Mareth, K. F., Riegert-Johnson, D. L., Das, A., & Wallace, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Wallace, Michael B.
Venue
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
41-53
ISSN
1542-3565 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2809523459
Cited by
113
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, high-risk individuals, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, diagnostic yield, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pancreatic dysplasia, genetic susceptibility, family history (medicine), surveillance (medicine), number needed to screen
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Incidence, Early Detection of Cancer, Young Adult, Asymptomatic Diseases, Optical Imaging

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