CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 659Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium

Open access
Goggins, Michael, Overbeek, Kasper Alexander, Brand, Randall, Syngal, Sapna, Del Chiaro, Marco, Bartsch, Detlef K, Bassi, Claudio, Carrato, Alfredo +18 more·2020·Gut
DOI 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319352PMC PMC7295005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background and aim: The International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium met in 2018 to update its consensus recommendations for the management of individuals with increased risk of pancreatic cancer based on family history or germline mutation status (high-risk individuals). Methods: A modified Delphi approach was employed to reach consensus among a multidisciplinary group of experts who voted on consensus statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Results: Consensus was reached on 55 statements. The main goals of surveillance (to identify high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions and T1N0M0 pancreatic cancer) remained unchanged. Experts agreed that for those with familial risk, surveillance should start no earlier than age 50 or 10 years earlier than the youngest relative with pancreatic cancer, but were split on whether to start at age 50 or 55. Germline ATM mutation carriers with one affected first-degree relative are now considered eligible for surveillance. Experts agreed that preferred surveillance tests are endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but no consensus was reached on how to alternate these modalities. Annual surveillance is recommended in the absence of concerning lesions. Main areas of disagreement included if and how surveillance should be performed for hereditary pancreatitis, and the management of indeterminate lesions. Conclusions: Pancreatic surveillance is recommended for selected high-risk individuals to detect early pancreatic cancer and its high-grade precursors, but should be performed in a research setting by multidisciplinary teams in centres with appropriate expertise. Until more evidence supporting these recommendations is available, the benefits, risks and costs of surveillance of pancreatic surveillance need additional evaluation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319352

Cites

113 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 54 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingreasoning

    Most pancreatic surveillance protocols for high-risk individuals use MRI/MRCP and/or EUS, with pancreatic-protocol CT reserved for those unable to have MRI or EUS.

    “Most pancreatic surveillance protocols for high-risk individuals use pancreatic imaging with MRI/magneticretrograde cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), with pancreatic-protocol CT reserved for individuals unable to have MRI or EUS.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    The average age for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is slightly younger in smokers, by several years, than in non-smokers.

    “The average age for diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is slightly younger in smokers (by several years) than in non-smokers.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [51] Brand, 2009, Pancreatic cancer patients who smoke and drink are diagnosed at younger ages, Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [52] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    The average age of pancreatic cancer diagnosis among individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer is younger than for those with no family history.

    “The average age of pancreatic cancer diagnosis among individuals with a family history of pancreatic cancer is younger than for those with no family history”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    Subcentimetre pancreatic cysts are detected in up to 50% of high-risk individuals, depending on the age of the cohort.

    “Subcentimetre pancreatic cysts are detected in up to 50% of high-risk individuals, depending on the age of the cohort.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] Canto, 2018, Risk of neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer undergoing long-term surveillance, Gastroenterology source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [54] Zerboni, 2019, Systematic review and meta-analysis: prevalence of incidentally detected pancreatic cystic lesions in asymptomatic individuals, Pancreatology source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    Most pancreatic cancers in high-risk individuals with familial risk only under surveillance are diagnosed after age 55.

    “To date, most pancreatic cancers in high-risk individuals with familial risk only (ie, no known susceptibility gene mutation) under surveillance are diagnosed after age 55.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] Canto, 2018, Risk of neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer undergoing long-term surveillance, Gastroenterology source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 39
  • May combine two claims. 9

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    For carriers of mutations in ATM, BRCA2 and PALB2, the experts reached consensus to recommend surveillance for those who have a blood relative with pancreatic cancer.

    “For carriers of mutations in ATM, BRCA2 and PALB2, the consensus among experts was to recommended surveillance for mutation carriers who have a blood relative with pancreatic cancer.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Surveillance for CDKN2A and STK11 mutation carriers is recommended irrespective of family history because of their high lifetime risk.

    “Surveillance for CDKN2A and STK11 (Peutz-Jegher syndrome) mutation carriers is recommended irrespective of patients’ family history of pancreatic cancer, because of their high lifetime risk.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The 76 final responders included 37 gastroenterologists, 16 surgeons, 7 pathologists, 6 radiologists, 5 geneticists, 3 oncologists, and two epidemiologists, from 11 countries and four continents.

    “The 76 final responders included 37 gastroenterologists, 16 surgeons, 7 pathologists, 6 radiologists, 5 geneticists, 3 oncologists, and two epidemiologists, from 11 countries and four continents”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Seventy of the final responders (92%) worked in a university hospital setting.

    “70 (92%) worked in a university hospital setting.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    No consensus was reached on how to alternate endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/MRCP.

    “but no consensus was reached on how to alternate these modalities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Germline ATM mutation carriers with one affected first-degree relative are now considered eligible for surveillance.

    “Germline ATM mutation carriers with one affected first-degree relative are now considered eligible for surveillance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Recommendations for age and family history for surveillance vary by gene.

    “Recommendations for age and family history vary by gene.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The main areas of disagreement included whether and how to perform surveillance for hereditary pancreatitis and how to manage indeterminate lesions.

    “Main areas of disagreement included if and how surveillance should be performed for hereditary pancreatitis, and the management of indeterminate lesions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Age, family history and germline mutation status are the major criteria for determining eligibility for pancreatic surveillance.

    “Age, family history and germline mutation status are the major criteria for determining eligibility for pancreatic surveillance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Findingreasoning

    Germline testing should be considered for individuals eligible for pancreatic cancer surveillance.

    “Therefore, germline testing should be considered for individuals eligible for pancreatic cancer surveillance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [41] Abe, 2019, Deleterious germline mutations are a risk factor for neoplastic progression among high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic surveillance, J Clin Oncol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [42] Konings, 2017, Prevalence and progression of pancreatic cystic precursor lesions differ between groups at high risk of developing pancreatic cancer, Pancreas source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Eighty-two experts completed the first voting round and 76 completed the second, giving an 84% response rate.

    “Eighty-two completed the first round, 76 completed the second round (response rate 84%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The experts were divided on whether to begin surveillance at age 50 or age 55 for familial risk.

    “but were split on whether to start at age 50 or 55.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Consensus on family history recommendations for pancreatic surveillance was the same as in the 2013 guidelines.

    “Consensus on family history recommendations for pancreatic surveillance (ie, having at least one first-degree relative and one second-degree relative with pancreatic cancer) were the same as in the 2013 guidelines.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Ninety-one experts met the selection criteria and were invited to vote.

    “Ninety-one experts met selection criteria and were invited to vote.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Consensus was reached for recommending that BRCA1 mutation carriers undergo surveillance.

    “but consensus was reached for recommending that BRCA1 mutation carriers undergo surveillance (online supplementary table S2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    For people with familial risk, the experts agreed that surveillance should not begin before age 50 or 10 years before the youngest affected relative.

    “Experts agreed that for those with familial risk, surveillance should start no earlier than age 50 or 10 years earlier than the youngest relative with pancreatic cancer”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Since the previous consensus, ATM mutation carriers have been added to the list recommended for surveillance.

    “Since the previous consensus, ATM mutation carriers have been added to the list recommended for surveillance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The final responders had practised for a median of 22 years and had been involved in a pancreatic cancer surveillance programme for a median of 10 years.

    “They had practised their profession for a median of 22 (IQR 15) years, and had been involved in a pancreatic cancer surveillance programme for a median of 10 (IQR 12) years.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingcitation

    Pancreatic surveillance is recommended for carriers of germline deleterious variants in BRCA2, ATM, BRCA1, PALB2, CDKN2A, STK11, MLH1 and MSH2.

    “Pancreatic surveillance is recommended for carriers of germline deleterious variants in cancer susceptibility gene,22–26: BRCA2, ATM, BRCA1, PALB2, CDKN2A, STK11, MLH1 and MSH2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [22] Goggins, 1996, Germline BRCA2 gene mutations in patients with apparently sporadic pancreatic carcinomas, Cancer Res

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [23] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [24] Jones, 2009, Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility gene, Science source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [25] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [26] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The experts agreed that the preferred surveillance tests are endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/MRCP.

    “Experts agreed that preferred surveillance tests are endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Surveillance is recommended for patients with hereditary pancreatitis, with most experts recommending age 40 or 20 years after the first pancreatitis attack, irrespective of gene status.

    “Surveillance is recommended for patients with hereditary pancreatitis, with most experts recommending age 40 or 20 years after the first pancreatitis attack (online supplementary table S2), irrespective of gene status.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The expert panel reached consensus on 55 statements.

    “Consensus was reached on 55 statements.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The main targets of surveillance remained the same: high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions and T1N0M0 pancreatic cancer.

    “The main goals of surveillance (to identify high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions and T1N0M0 pancreatic cancer) remained unchanged.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Consensus on family history criteria for BRCA1 mutation carriers was not reached.

    “Consensus on family history criteria for BRCA1 mutation carriers was not reached (table 1)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    There was no consensus that the age at which surveillance begins should be modified for high-risk individuals who smoke.

    “There was no consensus that the age at which surveillance begins should be modified for high-risk individuals who smoke.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    When to initiate pancreatic surveillance for these mutation carriers did not reach consensus.

    “When to initiate pancreatic surveillance for these mutation carriers did not reach consensus (online supplementary table S2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Some experts thought surveillance should begin at age 50, while others thought age 55.

    “but some experts thought surveillance should begin at 50, others at age 55.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Surveillance from age 40 is recommended for CDKN2A mutation carriers.

    “surveillance from age 40 is recommended for CDKN2A mutation carriers”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The relative risk of pancreatic cancer among smokers is not considered sufficiently high to recommend surveillance in the absence of other risk factors.

    “The relative risk of pancreatic cancer among smokers is not considered sufficiently high to recommend surveillance in the absence of other risk factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Recent NCCN guidelines recommend offering gene testing for patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, but this recommendation did not reach consensus among CAPS experts.

    “Recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend offering gene testing for patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; this recommendation did not reach consensus among CAPS experts”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Pedigrees are often small and family histories incomplete.

    “pedigrees are often small and family histories incomplete.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    For individuals meeting familial risk criteria without a defined genetic mutation, consensus was that surveillance should begin at age 50 or later.

    “For individuals who meet familial risk criteria (without a defined genetic mutation) the consensus was that surveillance should begin at age 50 or later”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    For mutation carriers with a deleterious germline variant, the recommended age to initiate surveillance is generally age 50 for BRCA2, ATM and PALB2.

    “For mutation carriers, with a deleterious germline variant, the recommended age to initiate surveillance is generally age 50 (BRCA2, ATM, PALB2)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Voting was anonymous.

    “Voting was anonymous.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The guideline update used a modified Delphi approach.

    “Guideline development used a modified Delphi approach.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [13] Boulkedid, 2011, Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review, PLoS One source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Non-votes were excluded from consensus tabulations.

    “Non-votes were not included in consensus tabulations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The strength of consensus was graded using GRADE definitions.

    “Strength of consensus was based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)14 definitions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] Schünemann, 2003, Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations, CMAJ

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Consensus was defined as at least 75% of experts agreeing or disagreeing.

    “Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Cost-effectiveness models for pancreatic surveillance have been published.

    “Cost-effectiveness models of pancreatic surveillance have been reported.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [110] Corral, 2019, Cost-effectiveness of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals, Pancreas source

      Not checked in the free run.

40 of 40

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Early detection is the most effective way to improve survival from pancreatic cancer.

    “early detection is considered the most effective way to improve survival.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Individuals with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility have an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer that manifests over several decades.

    “Individuals with a strong family history and/or genetic susceptibility have an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer that manifests over several decades.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Emerging technologies such as CT detection of muscle and fat wasting and deep learning for subtle pancreatic changes have not yet been applied in high-risk settings.

    “Emerging technologies such as CT detection of muscle and fat wasting as well as subtle changes in the pancreas using deep learning have yet to be applied to the high-risk setting.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The value of glucose monitoring for detecting new-onset diabetes in patients already receiving routine pancreatic imaging is unknown.

    “Similarly, the value of glucose monitoring in detecting new-onset diabetes for patients already undergoing routine pancreatic imaging is not known.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Interval advanced-stage pancreatic cancers occur in some patients undergoing regular pancreatic imaging.

    “The emergence of interval (ie, presenting before their annual surveillance) advanced-stage pancreatic cancers in some patients under regular pancreatic imaging”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The main factors used in clinical practice to assess pancreatic cancer risk in high-risk individuals remain family history, gene mutation status, age, and pancreatic imaging abnormalities.

    “The main factors used in clinical practice to assess the risk of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals remain family history, gene mutation status, age and pancreatic imaging abnormalities.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cost-effectiveness model results depend on cost estimates.

    “cost-effective model results depend on cost estimates”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    MRI and EUS costs vary considerably.

    “MRI and EUS costs vary considerably.”
8 of 8

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?

  • Pancreas surveillance has been recommended for individuals estimated to be at high risk of developing PDAC (5% or higher estimated lifetime risk).

    “Pancreas surveillance has been recommended for individuals estimated to be at high risk of developing PDAC (5% or higher estimated lifetime risk).5-8”

    From The Multicenter Cancer of Pancreas Screening Study: Impact on Stage and Survival (2022) · cites this paper as [6]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Owens, 2019, Screening for pancreatic cancer: US preventive services task force reaffirmation recommendation statement, JAMA, 322, 438, 10.1001/jama.2019.10232 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Owens, 2019, Screening for pancreatic cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Reaffirmation Recommendation Statement methods and rationale for the early detection of pancreatic cancer. Highlights from the "2010 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium". Orlando, FL, USA. January 22-24, 2010, JAMA, 322, 438
  3. Konings, 2019, Detection and outcome of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals: results from the caps Consortium, BJS open, 3, 656, 10.1002/bjs5.50180 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goggins, M., Overbeek, K. A., Brand, R., Syngal, S., Del Chiaro, M., Bartsch, D. K., Bassi, C., Carrato, A., Farrell, J., Fishman, E. K., Fockens, P., Gress, T. M., van Hooft, J. E., Hruban, R. H., Kastrinos, F., Klein, A., Lennon, A. M., Lucas, A., Park, W., Rustgi, A., Simeone, D., Stoffel, E., Vasen, H. F. A., Cahen, D. L., Canto, M. I., & Bruno, M.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, Denver, Colorado, USA
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
  • University of Verona (IT)
  • Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal (ES)
  • Yale University (US)
  • The Russell H Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  • Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism (NL)
  • Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • NYU Langone Health (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Goggins, Michael
ORCID
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-10-31
Volume
69
Issue
1
Pages
7-17
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
DOI
10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319352
PMC
PMC7295005
OpenAlex
W2982364478
Cited by
659
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 87 · 2025: 100 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 99 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
27.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (CA210170)
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, familial pancreatic cancer, high-risk individuals, cancer surveillance, germline mutations, hereditary pancreatitis, pancreatic precursor lesions, endoscopic ultrasound, indeterminate lesions, consensus recommendations
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Carcinoma, Humans, Mass Screening, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Population Surveillance, Risk Factors, Germ-Line Mutation, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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