Cited by 648Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Frequent detection of pancreatic lesions in asymptomatic high-risk individuals

Open access
Canto, Marcia Irene, Hruban, Ralph H., Fishman, Elliot K., Kamel, Ihab R., Schulick, Richard, Zhang, Zhe, Topazian, Mark, Takahashi, Naoki +15 more·2012·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & aims The risk of pancreatic cancer is increased in patients with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer or a predisposing germline mutation. Screening can detect curable, noninvasive pancreatic neoplasms, but the optimal imaging approach is not known. We determined the baseline prevalence and characteristics of pancreatic abnormalities using 3 imaging tests to screen asymptomatic, high-risk individuals (HRIs).Methods We screened 225 asymptomatic adult HRIs at 5 academic US medical centers once, using computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). We compared results in a blinded, independent fashion.Results Ninety-two of 216 HRIs (42%) were found to have at least 1 pancreatic mass (84 cystic, 3 solid) or a dilated pancreatic duct (n = 5) by any of the imaging modalities. Fifty-one of the 84 HRIs with a cyst (60.7%) had multiple lesions, typically small (mean, 0.55 cm; range, 2-39 mm), in multiple locations. The prevalence of pancreatic lesions increased with age; they were detected in 14% of subjects younger than 50 years old, 34% of subjects 50-59 years old, and 53% of subjects 60-69 years old (P < .0001). CT, MRI, and EUS detected a pancreatic abnormality in 11%, 33.3%, and 42.6% of the HRIs, respectively. Among these abnormalities, proven or suspected neoplasms were identified in 85 HRIs (82 intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and 3 pancreatic endocrine tumors). Three of 5 HRIs who underwent pancreatic resection had high-grade dysplasia in less than 3 cm intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and in multiple intraepithelial neoplasias.Conclusions Screening of asymptomatic HRIs frequently detects small pancreatic cysts, including curable, noninvasive high-grade neoplasms. EUS and MRI detect pancreatic lesions better than CT.

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 · 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.01.005

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • MRI is better for pancreatic cyst detection, and EUS is better for solid lesions.

    “The question of what imaging modality to use was addressed in part by a comparative study by the Rotterdam group showing that MRI was better for pancreatic cyst detection, and EUS was better for solid lesions.74”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Results (Concordance of CT, MRI, and EUS Pancreatic Abnormalities; page unavailable) support the EUS portion: EUS detected three solid nodules missed by MRI. They do not support MRI being better for cyst detection: EUS detected slightly more subcentimeter cysts and more cysts over 1 cm. The Methods describe screening at five US medical centers, not a Rotterdam-group study. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EUS and MRI have higher comparable diagnostic yield in a 3-way blinded comparison of EUS, MRI, and CT.

    “A 3-way blinded comparison of EUS, MRI, and CT also showed that EUS and MRI had higher comparable diagnostic yield.75”
  • The preference for EUS and MRI/MRCP over CT is based on their superiority at detecting subcentimetre pancreatic cysts and on avoiding ionising radiation.

    “The preference for EUS and MRI/MRCP rather than CT is based on their superiority at detecting subcentimetre pancreatic cysts, and avoidance of ionising radiation.”

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

1 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [16]Slater EP Langer P Niemczyk E Strauch K Butler J Habbe N Neoptolemos J Greenhalf W Bartsch DK PALB2 mutations in European familial pancreatic cancer families. Clin Genet 20412113
  2. [28]Canto MI Goggins M Yeo CJ Griffin C Axilbund JE Brune K Ali SZ Jagannath S Petersen GM Fishman EK Piantadosi S Giardiello FM Hruban RH Screening for pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: an EUS-based approach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004 2 606 21 15224285
  3. [29]Poley JW Kluijt I Gouma DJ Harinck F Wagner A Aalfs C van Eijck CH Cats A Kuipers EJ Nio Y Fockens P Bruno MJ The yield of first-time endoscopic ultrasonography in screening individuals at a high risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2009 104 2175 81 19491823
  4. [31]Vasen HF Wasser M van Mil A Tollenaar RA Konstantinovski M Gruis NA Bergman W Hes FJ Hommes DW Offerhaus GJ Morreau H Bonsing BA de Vos tot Nederveen Cappel WH Magnetic resonance imaging surveillance detects early-stage pancreatic cancer in carriers of a p16-Leiden mutation. Gastroenterology 2011 140 850 6 21129377

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Canto, M. I., Hruban, R. H., Fishman, E. K., Kamel, I. R., Schulick, R., Zhang, Z., Topazian, M., Takahashi, N., Fletcher, J., Petersen, G., Klein, A. P., Axilbund, J., Griffin, C., Syngal, S., Saltzman, J. R., Mortele, K. J., Lee, J., Tamm, E., Vikram, R., Bhosale, P., Margolis, D., Farrell, J., & Goggins, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Canto, Marcia Irene
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-04
Volume
142
Issue
4
Pages
796-804
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055276888
Cited by
648
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 63 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 43 · 2012: 27
FWCI
27.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (P50 CA62924)
  • Lustgarten Foundation
  • Olympus
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
pancreatic cancer screening, high-risk individuals, pancreatic cysts, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, pancreatic duct dilatation, endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, computed tomography, pancreatic neoplasms, familial pancreatic cancer, germline mutations, intraepithelial neoplasia, pancreatic resection
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Aged, Diagnostic Imaging, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Cyst, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Pedigree, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, United States, Prevalence, Multivariate Analysis, Chi-Square Distribution, Logistic Models, Risk Assessment, Endosonography, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Heredity, Asymptomatic Diseases

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