Literature DB >> 29709409

Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk individuals: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis of screening results.

Salvatore Paiella1, Roberto Salvia2, Matteo De Pastena2, Tommaso Pollini2, Luca Casetti2, Luca Landoni2, Alessandro Esposito2, Giovanni Marchegiani2, Giuseppe Malleo2, Giulia De Marchi3, Aldo Scarpa4, Mirko D'Onofrio5, Riccardo De Robertis6, Teresa Lucia Pan2, Laura Maggino2, Stefano Andrianello2, Erica Secchettin2, Deborah Bonamini2, Davide Melisi7, Massimiliano Tuveri2, Claudio Bassi2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/
OBJECTIVES: Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer (PC) in familial high-risk individuals (FPC-HRI) have been widely reported, but their merits remain unclear. The data reported so far are heterogeneous-especially in terms of screening yield. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available data coming from screening/surveillance programs to evaluate the proportion of screening goal achievement (SGA), overall surgery and unnecessary surgery.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library database from January 2000 to December 2016to identify studies reporting results of screening/surveillance programs including cohorts of FPC-HRI. The main outcome measures were weighted proportion of SGA, overall surgery, and unnecessary surgery among the FPC-HRI cohort, using a random effects model. SGA was defined as any diagnosis of resectable PC, PanIN3, or high-grade dysplasia intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (HGD-IPMN). Unnecessary surgery was defined as any other final pathology.
RESULTS: In a meta-analysis of 16 studies reporting on 1551 FPC-HRI cases, 30 subjects (1.82%), received a diagnosis of PC, PanIN3 or HGD-IPMNs. The pooled proportion of SGA was 1.4%(95% CI 0.8-2, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). The pooled proportion of overall surgery was 6%(95% CI 4.1-7.9, p < 0.001, I2 = 60.91%). The pooled proportion of unnecessary surgery was 68.1%(95% CI 59.5-76.7, p < 0.001, I2 = 4.05%); 105 subjects (6.3%) received surgery, and the overall number of diagnoses from non-malignant specimens was 156 (1.5 lesion/subject).
CONCLUSIONS: The weighted proportion of SGA of screening/surveillance programs published thus far is excellent. However, the probability of receiving surgery during the screening/surveillance program is non-negligible, and unnecessary surgery is a potential negative outcome.
Copyright © 2018 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Diagnostic yield; Familial pancreatic cancer; Pancreatic cancer; Screening program; Surveillance program

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29709409     DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.04.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pancreatology        ISSN: 1424-3903            Impact factor:   3.996


  10 in total

Review 1.  Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance: Who, When, and How.

Authors:  Beth Dudley; Randall E Brand
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-12

2.  Surveillance for individuals at high-risk of pancreatic cancer: Are we finally heading toward evidence?

Authors:  Gabriele Capurso
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2019-03-29       Impact factor: 4.623

3.  The German National Case Collection for Familial Pancreatic Carcinoma (FaPaCa)—Knowledge Gained in 20 Years.

Authors:  Detlef Klaus Bartsch; Elvira Matthäi; Ioannis Mintziras; Christian Bauer; Jens Figiel; Mercede Sina-Boemers; Thomas M Gress; Peter Langer; Emily P Slater
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 5.594

4.  Familial pancreatic cancer risk: a population-based study in Utah.

Authors:  Divyanshoo R Kohli; Ken Robert Smith; Jathine Wong; Zhe Yu; Kenneth Boucher; Douglas O Faigel; Rahul Pannala; Randall W Burt; Karen Curtin; N Jewel Samadder
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 7.527

Review 5.  Germline Aberrations in Pancreatic Cancer: Implications for Clinical Care.

Authors:  Raffaella Casolino; Vincenzo Corbo; Philip Beer; Chang-Il Hwang; Salvatore Paiella; Valentina Silvestri; Laura Ottini; Andrew V Biankin
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 6.575

Review 6.  Pancreatic Cancer: Pathogenesis, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Authors:  Laura D Wood; Marcia Irene Canto; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Diane M Simeone
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 33.883

7.  Validation of the ENDPAC model: Identifying new-onset diabetics at risk of pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Salman Khan; Rudi Fnu Safarudin; Justin T Kupec
Journal:  Pancreatology       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.996

8.  Implications of Multigene Panel Testing on Psychosocial Outcomes: A Comparison of Patients With Pancreatic and Breast or Ovarian Cancer.

Authors:  Cathryn Koptiuch; Whitney F Espinel; Wendy K Kohlmann; Jingsong Zhao; Kimberly A Kaphingst
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2021-01-19

9.  Genetic counselling and personalised risk assessment in the Australian pancreatic cancer screening program.

Authors:  Tanya Dwarte; Skye McKay; Amber Johns; Katherine Tucker; Allan D Spigelman; David Williams; Alina Stoita
Journal:  Hered Cancer Clin Pract       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 2.857

10.  High signal intensity on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images is a useful finding for detecting early-stage pancreatic cancer.

Authors:  Akira Kurita; Yoshiharu Mori; Yuko Someya; Shigeto Kubo; Shunjiro Azuma; Kosuke Iwano; Satoshi Ikeda; Ryosuke Okumura; Shujiro Yazumi
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-07-05
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.