Cited by 295Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Early Detection of Sporadic Pancreatic Cancer: Summative Review

Open access

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is estimated to become the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States by 2020. Early detection is the key to improving survival in PC. Addressing this urgent need, the Kenner Family Research Fund conducted the inaugural Early Detection of Sporadic Pancreatic Cancer Summit Conference in 2014 in conjunction with the 45th Anniversary Meeting of the American Pancreatic Association and Japan Pancreas Society. This seminal convening of international representatives from science, practice, and clinical research was designed to facilitate challenging interdisciplinary conversations to generate innovative ideas leading to the creation of a defined collaborative strategic pathway for the future of the field. An in-depth summary of current efforts in the field, analysis of gaps in specific areas of expertise, and challenges that exist in early detection is presented within distinct areas of inquiry: Case for Early Detection: Definitions, Detection, Survival, and Challenges; Biomarkers for Early Detection; Imaging; and Collaborative Studies. In addition, an overview of efforts in familial PC is presented in an addendum to this article. It is clear from the summit deliberations that only strategically designed collaboration among investigators, institutions, and funders will lead to significant progress in early detection of sporadic PC.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mpa.0000000000000368

Cites

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Stage-specific survival for histologically confirmed PC derived from SEER data.
FIGURE 1 Stage-specific survival for histologically confirmed PC derived from SEER data.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Effect of resection on survival in PC. A, The comparison for combined stages IA and IB cases. B, Survival comparison for cases (combined stages IA and IB) for which resection was recommended, and resection was either performed or refused. C, Predicted survival for a typical stage IB case (69-year-old woman) recommended for resection.
FIGURE 2 Effect of resection on survival in PC. A, The comparison for combined stages IA and IB cases. B, Survival comparison for cases (combined stages IA and IB) for which resection was recommended, and resection was either performed or refused. C, Predicted survival for a typical stage IB case (69-year-old woman) recommended for resection.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

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.

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?

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

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. References are available online at: http://links.lww.com/MPA/A374.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 295

Metadata

Authors
Chari, S. T., Kelly, K., Hollingsworth, M. A., Thayer, S. P., Ahlquist, D. A., Andersen, D. K., Batra, S. K., Brentnall, T. A., Canto, M., Cleeter, D. F., Firpo, M. A., Gambhir, S. S., Go, V. L. W., Hines, O. J., Kenner, B. J., Klimstra, D. S., Lerch, M. M., Levy, M. J., Maitra, A., Mulvihill, S. J., Petersen, G. M., Rhim, A. D., Simeone, D. M., Srivastava, S., Tanaka, M., Vinik, A. I., & Wong, D.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Eastern Virginia Medical School (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chari, Suresh T.
  • Ahlquist, David A.
  • Canto, Marcia
  • Klimstra, David S.
  • Tanaka, Masao
Venue
Pancreas
Published
2015-07
Volume
44
Issue
5
Pages
693-712
ISSN
0885-3177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064141899
Cited by
295
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 8
FWCI
14.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Pancreas (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P50CA102701, R01CA168712, R01CA177857)
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, early detection, biomarkers, pancreatic imaging, familial pancreatic cancer, cancer survival, interdisciplinary collaboration, research gaps
MeSH terms
Biopsy, Congresses as Topic, Cooperative Behavior, Diagnostic Imaging, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, International Cooperation, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Survival Analysis, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Interdisciplinary Communication, Biomedical Research, 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