Literature DB >> 29309780

Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals with germline genetic mutations.

Tomas DaVee1, Emmanuel Coronel1, Charilaos Papafragkakis1, Sayam Thaiudom1, Gandhi Lanke1, Raja C Chakinala1, Graciela M Nogueras González2, Manoop S Bhutani1, William A Ross1, Brian R Weston1, Jeffrey H Lee1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a deadly disease that is most commonly diagnosed at an incurable stage. Different high-risk genetic variants and cancer syndromes increase the lifetime risk of developing PC. This study aims to assess the yield of initial PC screening in patients with high-risk germline mutations.
METHODS: Asymptomatic adults underwent PC screening by EUS, magnetic resonance imaging, or CT during a 10-year period and were retrospectively identified. High-risk individuals were defined as carrying germline mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, p53 (Li-Fraumeni), STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers), MSH2 (Lynch), ATM (ataxia-telangiectasia), or APC (familial adenomatous polyposis). Patients without germline mutations were excluded.
RESULTS: In total, 86 patients met the study criteria. The median age was 48.5 years (interquartile range, 40-58), 79.1% (68) were women, and 43.0% (37) had a family history of PC. The genetic mutations were BRCA2 (50, 58.1%), BRCA1 (14, 16.3%), p53 (12, 14.0%), STK11 (5, 5.8%), MSH2 (3, 3.5%), ATM (1, 1.2%), and APC (1, 1.2%). Screening detected a pancreatic abnormality (PA) in 26.7% (23/86), including cysts (11, 47.8%), hyperechoic strands and foci (10, 43.5%), and mild pancreatic duct dilation (2, 8.7%). Patients older than 60 years were more likely to have a PA detected (P = .043). EUS detected more PAs than magnetic resonance imaging or CT. No cases of PC were diagnosed by screening or during follow-up (median, 29.8 months; interquartile range, 21.7-43.5).
CONCLUSIONS: Unless indicated otherwise by family or personal history, PC screening under the age of 50 is low yield. Linear EUS may be the preferred modality for initial PC screening.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29309780     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  14 in total

Review 1.  The Role of Inherited Pathogenic CDKN2A Variants in Susceptibility to Pancreatic Cancer.

Authors:  Hirokazu Kimura; Alison P Klein; Ralph H Hruban; Nicholas J Roberts
Journal:  Pancreas       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 3.243

2.  Abdominal Imaging of Pancreatic Cysts and Cyst-Associated Pancreatic Cancer in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Carrie X Cao; Jeremy M Sharib; Amie M Blanco; Dena Goldberg; Paige Bracci; Rita A Mukhtar; Laura J Esserman; Kimberly S Kirkwood
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2019-10-28       Impact factor: 6.113

3.  Is mortality-to-incidence ratio associated with health disparity in pancreatic cancer? A cross-sectional database analysis of 57 countries.

Authors:  Hsiang-Lin Lee; Cheng-Ming Peng; Cheng-Yu Huang; Shin-Yi Wu; Ming-Chang Tsai; Chi-Chih Wang; Sung-Lang Chen; Chun-Che Lin; Chien-Ning Huang; Wen-Wei Sung
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  Role of endoscopic ultrasound in the screening and follow-up of high-risk individuals for familial pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Diane Lorenzo; Vinciane Rebours; Frédérique Maire; Maxime Palazzo; Jean-Michel Gonzalez; Marie-Pierre Vullierme; Alain Aubert; Pascal Hammel; Philippe Lévy; Louis de Mestier
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-09-14       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Single-session esophagogastroduodenoscopy and endoscopic ultrasound using a forward-viewing radial scan ultrasonic endoscope.

Authors:  Daisuke Uchida; Hironari Kato; Kazuyuki Matsumoto; Yuki Ishihara; Akihiro Matsumi; Yosuke Saragai; Saimon Takada; Shuntaro Yabe; Shinichiro Muro; Takeshi Tomoda; Shigeru Horiguchi; Hiroyuki Okada
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Prophylactic total pancreatectomy in individuals at high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PROPAN): systematic review and shared decision-making programme using decision tables.

Authors:  Lianne Scholten; Anouk Ej Latenstein; Cora M Aalfs; Marco J Bruno; Olivier R Busch; Bert A Bonsing; Bas Groot Koerkamp; I Quintus Molenaar; Dirk T Ubbink; Jeanin E van Hooft; Paul Fockens; Jolanda Glas; J Hans DeVries; Marc G Besselink
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2020-07-23       Impact factor: 4.623

7.  Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound as a one-off pancreatic cancer screening tool for 122 high- and moderate-risk patients.

Authors:  Marios Efthymiou; Sujievvan Chandran; Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao Pu; Allison Collins; Anton Rajadurai; Mehrdad Nikfarjam; Rhys Vaughan
Journal:  JGH Open       Date:  2020-10-17

Review 8.  Psychological impact of pancreatic cancer screening by EUS or magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk individuals: A systematic review.

Authors:  Irina Mihaela Cazacu; Adriana Alexandra Luzuriaga Chavez; Adrian Saftoiu; Manoop S Bhutani
Journal:  Endosc Ultrasound       Date:  2019 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.628

9.  Patient-reported burden of intensified surveillance and surgery in high-risk individuals under pancreatic cancer surveillance.

Authors:  Kasper A Overbeek; Djuna L Cahen; Anne Kamps; Ingrid C A W Konings; Femme Harinck; Marianne A Kuenen; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Marc G Besselink; Casper H van Eijck; Anja Wagner; Margreet G E Ausems; Manon van der Vlugt; Paul Fockens; Frank P Vleggaar; Jan-Werner Poley; Jeanin E van Hooft; Eveline M A Bleiker; Marco J Bruno
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 2.375

Review 10.  Familial Pancreatic Cancer: Current Perspectives.

Authors:  Joan Llach; Sabela Carballal; Leticia Moreira
Journal:  Cancer Manag Res       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 3.989

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.