Cited by 414Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentNeuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances

Risk of Neoplastic Progression in Individuals at High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Long-term Surveillance

Open access
Canto, Marcia Irene, Almario, Jose Alejandro, Schulick, Richard D., Yeo, Charles J., Klein, Alison, Blackford, Amanda, Shin, Eun Ji, Sanyal, Abanti +8 more·2018·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & aims Screening of individuals who have a high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), because of genetic factors, frequently leads to identification of pancreatic lesions. We investigated the incidence of PDAC and risk factors for neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for PDAC enrolled in a long-term screening study.Methods We analyzed data from 354 individuals at high risk for PDAC (based on genetic factors of family history), enrolled in Cancer of the Pancreas Screening cohort studies at tertiary care academic centers from 1998 through 2014 (median follow-up time, 5.6 years). All subjects were evaluated at study entry (baseline) by endoscopic ultrasonography and underwent surveillance with endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computed tomography. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of PDAC, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) after baseline. We performed multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses.Results During the follow-up period, pancreatic lesions with worrisome features (solid mass, multiple cysts, cyst size > 3 cm, thickened/enhancing walls, mural nodule, dilated main pancreatic duct > 5 mm, or abrupt change in duct caliber) or rapid cyst growth (>4 mm/year) were detected in 68 patients (19%). Overall, 24 of 354 patients (7%) had neoplastic progression (14 PDACs and 10 HGDs) over a 16-year period; the rate of progression was 1.6%/year, and 93% had detectable lesions with worrisome features before diagnosis of the PDAC or HGD. Nine of the 10 PDACs detected during routine surveillance were resectable; a significantly higher proportion of patients with resectable PDACs survived 3 years (85%) compared with the 4 subjects with symptomatic, unresectable PDACs (25%), which developed outside surveillance (log rank P < .0001). Neoplastic progression occurred at a median age of 67 years; the median time from baseline screening until PDAC diagnosis was 4.8 years (interquartile range, 1.6-6.9 years).Conclusions In a long-term (16-year) follow-up study of individuals at high-risk for PDAC, we found most PDACs detected during surveillance (9/10) to be resectable, and 85% of these patients survived for 3 years. We identified radiologic features associated with neoplastic progression.

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.2018.05.035

Cites

41 of 41 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 median time to progression from baseline was 4.8 years.

    “The median time to progression from baseline was 4.8 years.”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Results section (Rates of Progression and Time to Radiologic and Neoplastic Progression) reports a median of 4.8 years from baseline screening to neoplastic progression, but specifically for the 14 high-risk individuals who developed invasive pancreatic cancer after baseline. The citing sentence omits that restriction and could be read as applying to progression generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a highly selected cohort of 354 HRIs undergoing long-term surveillance (>16 years) at one institution, EUS and MRI surveillance can lead to detection of early PDAC and high-grade precursor IPMNs and PanINs.

    “In a highly selected cohort of 354 HRIs undergoing long-term surveillance (>16 years) at one institution, EUS and MRI surveillance can lead to detection of early PDAC and high-grade precursor IPMNs and PanINs, with most (90%) resected screen-detected PDACs found to be resectable, at an earlier stage than symptomatic PDAC.76”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Results (Cumulative Incidence and Outcomes of Surveillance and Treatment) report 354 high-risk individuals, detection of PDAC and high-grade IPMN/PanIN lesions, and resectability in 9 of 10 PDACs detected during routine surveillance, compared with 1 of 4 in patients presenting with symptoms. The Discussion says the EUS/MRI program identified high-grade precursors and notes that the cohort was followed at a single institution. The duration is overstated: the Results describe a 16-year study period, not more than 16 years of surveillance for the cohort; median individual follow-up was 5.6 years. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 PDAC risk in the familial group appears significant enough to warrant surveillance.

    “This observation is consistent with previous reports that the PDAC risk in the familial group appears significant enough to warrant surveillance.9,10,14”
  • 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.”

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: 3

  1. [2]Instittute NC SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2014 Howlader NNA Krapcho M Miller D Bishop K Kosary CL Yu M Ruhl J Tatalovich Z Mariotto A Lewis DR Chen HS Feuer EJ Cronin KA Bethesda, Maryland National Cancer Institute 2017
  2. [32]World Health Organization (WHO) WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System Geneva WHO Press 2010
  3. [33]World Health Organization (WHO) WHO Classification of Tumors of the Endocrine Organs Fourth Geneva WHO Press 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Canto, M. I., Almario, J. A., Schulick, R. D., Yeo, C. J., Klein, A., Blackford, A., Shin, E. J., Sanyal, A., Yenokyan, G., Lennon, A. M., Kamel, I. R., Fishman, E. K., Wolfgang, C., Weiss, M., Hruban, R. H., & Goggins, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
Corresponding author
Canto, Marcia Irene
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-09
Volume
155
Issue
3
Pages
740-751.e2
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2803439891
Cited by
414
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 73 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 10
FWCI
14.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA154823, R01CA132829, P50CA062924, R01CA176828, U01CA210170)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK089502)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Advances
Keywords
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, pancreatic cancer screening, high-risk individuals, familial pancreatic cancer, tumor progression, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, high-grade dysplasia, pancreatic cysts, resectable pancreatic cancer, survival after resection
MeSH terms
Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Pancreas, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Incidence, Proportional Hazards Models, Disease Progression, Sentinel Surveillance, Endosonography, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, 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