The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic Yield From Screening Asymptomatic Individuals at High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer: A Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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.”
From The Multicenter Cancer of Pancreas Screening Study: Impact on Stage and Survival (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
In the citing paper
“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”
From The Multicenter Cancer of Pancreas Screening Study: Impact on Stage and Survival (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2017) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.21387 · Cited by 14,712
SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2003
Ries, L. A. G., Harkins, D., Krapcho, M. F., Mariotto, A. B., Miller, B., Feuer, E. J., Clegg, L. X., Eisner, M. P., Horner, M., Howlader, N., et al. (2006) · Digital Archive @ GSU · Cited by 11,404
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team (2011) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1102873 · Cited by 11,064
Six Hundred Fifty Consecutive Pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s
Yeo, C. J., Cameron, J. L., Riall, T. S., Lillemoe, K. D., Pitt, H. A., Talamini, M. A., Hruban, R. H., Ord, S. E., Sauter, P. K., Coleman, J., et al. (1997) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/00000658-199709000-00004 · Cited by 1,781
Hereditary Pancreatitis and the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer
Lowenfels, A. B., Maisonneuve, P., DiMagno, E. P., Elitsur, Y., Gates, L. K., Perrault, J., Whitcomb, D. C., & International Hereditary Pancreatitis Study Group (1997) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/89.6.442 · Cited by 988
Xiao, A., Tan, M. L., Wu, L. M., Asrani, V. M., Windsor, J. A., Yadav, D. K., & Petrov, M. S. (2016) · The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(16)30004-8 · Cited by 824
Colonoscopy in Colorectal-Cancer Screening for Detection of Advanced Neoplasia
Reguła, J., Rupiński, M., Kraszewska, E., Polkowski, M., Pachlewski, J., Orłowska, J., Nowacki, M. P., & Butruk, E. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa054967 · Cited by 785
Canto, M. I., Harinck, F., Hruban, R. H., Offerhaus, G. J., Poley, J.-W., Kamel, I., Nio, Y., Schulick, R. S., Bassi, C., Kluijt, I., et al. (2013) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303108 · Cited by 784
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–113 of 113
Pancreatic cancer - diagnosis, risk factors and treatment. Literature review
Olczyk, K. (2023) · Journal of Education Health and Sport · doi:10.12775/jehs.2023.17.01.016
Wu, B. U., Chen, Q., Moon, B., Lustigova, E., Nielsen, E. G., Alvarado, M., & Ahmed, S. A. (2023) · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ctg.0000000000000650
Pancreatic and Biliary Tract Cancers
Ney, A., Osei‐Bordom, D., García-Sampedro, A., Acedo, P., Fusai, G., Stott, M. C., Hopley, P. J., Patel, C., Oldfield, L. S., Greenhalf, W., et al. (2024) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781119756422.ch17
Vilalta, A., Das, A., & Wallace, M. B. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.11.12.25340092
Self-citationYang, X., Zhang, H., Jiang, W., Xin, Y., Dai, Z., Li, Z., Xiong, J., Sun, R., Shao, J., Yu, J., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-112124
Ismail, A., Dahanayake, A., Ahmed, S., Pillay, Y., & Khatib, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2026.1826846
Sagami, R., Mizukami, K., Nishikiori, H., Tsuji, H., Sato, T., Azuma, Y., Hiroshima, Y., Tsutsumi, K., Fukuda, M., Ozaka, S., et al. (2026) · Digestion · doi:10.1159/000552273
Outcomes of Surveillance Program for Individuals at High-Risk of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
Penumalee, L. S., Ma, Y., Chen, R., Hanley, K., Muller, C., DeGreef, B., & Keswani, R. N. (2026) · Pancreas · doi:10.1097/mpa.0000000000002696
Kim, S. H. (2026) · World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology · doi:10.4251/wjgo.v18.i7.121817
Okumura, K., Kozaka, K., & Kobayashi, S. (2026) · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s10620-026-10065-x
Genetics of Pancreatic Cystic Tumors
Sharma, R. K., Singh, A., Rana, S. S., & Mishra, N. K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-0654-4_13
Hereditary Pancreatic Cancer: Genetic Risk, Surveillance Strategies, and Therapeutic Implications
Marafioti, M., Patruno, M., Musarra, M., Silvestris, N., Funes, J. A. P., Omero, F., Sapuppo, E., Cianci, V., Calabrò, M., Irrera, N., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms27146404
A pancreas adenocarcinoma szűrési lehetőségei
Gieszinger, G., & Czakó, L. (2026) · Magyar Belorvosi Archívum · doi:10.59063/mba.2026.79.3.1
Metadata
- 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
- FWCI
- 1.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
