Cited by 164Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchGenetic factors in colorectal cancerPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment

Long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals

Open access
Overbeek, Kasper A, Levink, Iris J M, Koopmann, Brechtje D M, Harinck, Femme, Konings, Ingrid C A W, Ausems, Margreet G E M, Wagner, Anja, Fockens, Paul +12 more·2022·Gut

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to determine the long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in hereditary predisposed high-risk individuals. Design: From 2006 to 2019, we prospectively enrolled asymptomatic individuals with an estimated 10% or greater lifetime risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after obligatory evaluation by a clinical geneticist and genetic testing, and subjected them to annual surveillance with both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRI/cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP) at each visit. Results: 366 individuals (201 mutation-negative familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) kindreds and 165 PDAC susceptibility gene mutation carriers; mean age 54 years, SD 9.9) were followed for 63 months on average (SD 43.2). Ten individuals developed PDAC, of which four presented with a symptomatic interval carcinoma and six underwent resection. The cumulative PDAC incidence was 9.3% in the mutation carriers and 0% in the FPC kindreds (p<0.001). Median PDAC survival was 18 months (range 1–32). Surgery was performed in 17 individuals (4.6%), whose pathology revealed 6 PDACs (3 T1N0M0), 7 low-grade precursor lesions, 2 neuroendocrine tumours <2 cm, 1 autoimmune pancreatitis and in 1 individual no abnormality. There was no surgery-related mortality. EUS detected more solid lesions than MRI/MRCP (100% vs 22%, p<0.001), but less cystic lesions (42% vs 83%, p<0.001). Conclusion: The diagnostic yield of PDAC was substantial in established high-risk mutation carriers, but non-existent in the mutation-negative proven FPC kindreds. Nevertheless, timely identification of resectable lesions proved challenging despite the concurrent use of two imaging modalities, with EUS outperforming MRI/MRCP. Overall, surveillance by imaging yields suboptimal results with a clear need for more sensitive diagnostic markers, including biomarkers.

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-2020-323611

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • 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 CAPS5 study results differ from the Dutch Familial Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance Study Group report, which had a PDAC resectability rate of only 60%, possibly due to predominance of CDKN2A mutation carriers.

    “The CAPS5 study results differ in some respects from the recent report of the Dutch Familial Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance Study Group.16 This study reported a PDAC resectability rate of only 60%, which may be a function of the predominance of CDKN2A mutation carriers in their high-risk cohort”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Overbeek, K. A., Levink, I. J. M., Koopmann, B. D. M., Harinck, F., Konings, I. C. A. W., Ausems, M. G. E. M., Wagner, A., Fockens, P., van Eijck, C. H., Groot Koerkamp, B., Busch, O. R. C., Besselink, M. G., Bastiaansen, B. A. J., van Driel, L. M. J. W., Erler, N. S., Vleggaar, F. P., Poley, J.-W., Cahen, D. L., van Hooft, J. E., & Bruno, M. J.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • Department of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding author
Overbeek, Kasper A
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-04-05
Volume
71
Issue
6
Pages
1152-1160
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W3150102863
Cited by
164
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 11
FWCI
11.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Kom in beweging tegen alvleesklierkanker (charity donation)
  • ZonMw (120520016)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, cancer surveillance, hereditary pancreatic cancer, endoscopic ultrasound, diagnostic yield, early detection, pancreatic cysts, pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, autoimmune pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer biomarkers
MeSH terms
Carcinoma, Humans, Middle Aged, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, 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