Cited by 785Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer

Open access

Abstract

Background: Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia. Objective: To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC. Methods: A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Results: There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; and p16 , BRCA 2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended. Conclusions: Screening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.

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 · 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303108

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

Show all 88 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–785 of 785

Metadata

Authors
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., Levy, M. J., Chak, A., Fockens, P., Goggins, M., & Bruno, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University Hospitals of Cleveland (US)
Corresponding author
Canto, Marcia Irene
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-11-07
Volume
62
Issue
3
Pages
339-347
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2111705409
Cited by
784
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 66 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 82 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 71 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 45 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 6
FWCI
22.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K24CA113433, P30CA006973)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
pancreatic cancer screening, familial pancreatic cancer, genetic susceptibility, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, BRCA2 mutation carriers, Lynch syndrome, endoscopic ultrasound, surveillance interval, surgical management, high-volume centers, multidisciplinary team, consensus recommendations
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Carcinoma, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Mutation, Pancreatectomy, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Pedigree, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Endosonography, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance, Early Detection of Cancer, Neoplasm Grading

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