Abstract
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths and is associated with a poor prognosis. The majority of these cancers are detected at a late stage, contributing to the bad prognosis. This underscores the need for novel, enhanced early detection strategies to improve the outcomes. While population-based screening is not recommended due to the relatively low incidence of PDAC, surveillance is recommended for individuals at high risk for PDAC due to their increased incidence of the disease. However, the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals are not sorted out yet. In this review, we will address the identification of individuals at high risk for PDAC, discuss the objectives and targets of surveillance, outline how surveillance programs are organized, summarize the outcomes of high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer surveillance, and conclude with a future perspective on pancreatic cancer surveillance and novel developments.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a major health problem with a growing incidence [1]. It is anticipated that it will become the second-leading cause of cancer-related deaths by 2030 [2]. PDAC has a poor prognosis with a 5-year survival rate of less than 10% [3]. While surgical resection is the only curative treatment, 80% of PDACs are unresectable at presentation [4, 5]. This underscores the necessity for early detection. Nonetheless, pancreatic cancer screening of the general population is not feasible due to the relatively low incidence of this disease, with 13.3 cases per 100,000 individuals per year [6]. Even a highly accurate test would result in many false-positively diagnosed individuals, who would be subjected to unnecessary harm including operation, excessive psychological burden following from screening, and would lead to high costs [7, 8]. Accordingly, pancreatic cancer screening of the general population is currently not recommended by guidelines [9,10,11,12]. While that is the case, pancreatic screening may prove more effective when applied to subpopulations at an increased risk for PDAC [13].
Interestingly, it is known that up to 10% of individuals with PDAC have an underlying genetic predisposition [14]. The incidence of PDAC among these high-risk individuals (HRIs) is higher compared to that of the general population, making surveillance more appropriate in that subpopulation. Although data on long-term screening results are recently starting to be published, several questions persist. It remains unclear whether surveillance results in an increased resection rate of PDAC, avoids an excessive number of unnecessary surgeries and improves survival outcomes compared to no surveillance. Therefore, the aim of this review is to present a comprehensive overview of pancreatic cancer surveillance among HRIs. We will touch on who is considered to be at high-risk of PDAC, outline the objectives and targets of surveillance, describe how surveillance programs are organized, report outcomes and conclude with a future perspective on pancreatic cancer surveillance.
Selection of individuals at high-risk
HRIs are individuals with an increased risk of PDAC based on family history or a germline pathogenic variant (PV) status and require a minimum lifetime risk of PDAC of ≥ 5% [15]. Notably, there is variation in the cumulative incidence of PDAC among different germline PV carriers which underscores the complexity of selecting HRIs [16]. With some of the high-risk PVs being present in the PRSS1/SPINK1 gene carrying a lifetime risk of 7.2–53.3% [16]. This is followed by the STK11/LKB1 gene (11–36%) and the CDKN2A/p16 gene (19%) [16]. Adding to the complexity is the observation that PDAC may manifest at a younger age in certain carriers [17, 18].
In certain germline PV carriers the mutation status alone may not pose sufficient PDAC risk to be included in the surveillance program, therefore, family history of PDAC is also taken into account [19]. However, there is limited literature on the impact of positive family history on PDAC risk in predisposition genes, such as BRCA1/2, ATM and MLH1/MSH2/MSH6 [9, 10]. In fact, recent studies conducted on the impact of family history in individuals with PVs in BRCA1/2 genes have found no association between a positive family history and an increased risk of PDAC [20, 21]. Additionally, these studies recommend that all individuals with PVs in the BRCA genes to be included in pancreatic cancer surveillance, regardless of family history [20, 21]. Further research is required to confirm this.
Due to the variations among germline PV carriers, distinct recommendations are made for the starting age of surveillance for each specific group of germline PV carriers [9, 12]. An overview of known PDAC predisposition genes with starting age recommendations per guideline is shown in Table 1.
Individuals who do not meet the criteria for a known PDAC-associated inherited cancer syndrome but have two or more affected first-degree relatives (FDR) are characterized as a distinct group due to their strong family history. This group is referred to as ‘familial pancreatic cancer’ (FPC). Individuals with FPC, having three affected FDRs exhibit a standardized incidence ratio for PDAC of 32.0, while those with two affected relatives have a ratio of 6.4 [9, 22]. To our knowledge, there is currently no literature available on the distinct risks of PDAC in individuals with FPC, who have affected second-degree relatives (SDR). More research should be done to better understand the influence of a positive family history on the risk for PDAC among HRIs.
Objective and targets of pancreatic cancer surveillance
The primary objectives of pancreatic cancer surveillance are the early detection of PDAC, thereby improving the PDAC-related survival, and the detection of high-risk precursor lesions with the goal to decrease the incidence of PDAC [9]. According to the current guidelines, detection of stage I pancreatic cancer and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) precursor lesions, including pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)-3 and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) with HGD, is considered a successful surrogate outcome marker of surveillance [9, 12]. In accordance with American Joint Committee on Cancer guidelines, stage I pancreatic cancer is confined to the pancreas, with no evidence of tumor spread to the lymph nodes, and distant sites [23]. It is further divided into stage IA (T1N0M0) and IB (T2N0M0) based on size, with stage IA pertaining to tumors measuring 0–2 cm and stage IB including tumors ranging from 2 to 4 cm [23].
Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN)
PanINs are microscopic lesions in the pancreas, measuring less than 5 mm in diameter [24]. They are characterized by metaplasia of small ducts in the pancreas, replacing the normal cuboidal epithelium [25]. PanINs are classified into three grades, ranging from low-grade (PanIN1 and PanIN2) to high-grade dysplasia (PanIN3), with neoplastic progression driven by the accumulation of genetic alterations and, therefore, also associated with age [24]. PanIN3 was previously referred to as ductal carcinoma in situ due to its resemblance to invasive carcinoma [25]. PanIN lesions are recognized as precursors for invasive PDAC and are particularly common in the elderly [25]. In a study by Longnecker et al. [26], 86.4% of individuals at autopsy were found to have 1–43 PanINs. On average, the pancreases containing these PanINs harbored a mean of eight lesions. However, only a subset of these lesions will progress to invasive PDAC, with the likelihood of progression dependent on the grade [27]. The lifetime progression rate of PanIN-1 to PDAC is estimated at 1.3–1.5%, PanIN-2 to PDAC at 5.04–5.94% and PanIN-3 to PDAC at 28–33% [27]. As a result, surveillance is considered successful only when high-grade PanINs are resected. Additionally, the significance of numerous PanINs remains unclear. A study of Kiemen et al. [28] has found that PanINs are interconnected and form extensive networks of lesions rather than being solitary lesions. Further research is needed to understand the behavior of these PanINs and to identify additional factors that influence their progression into PDAC in the context of germline mutations, aiming to prevent the onset of PDAC and to avoid unnecessary surgical procedures.
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN)
IPMNs are macroscopic lesions that develop within the pancreatic ductal system [29]. These lesions are characterized by their cystic nature, mucin secretion and are less common than PanINs [29]. Studies on HRIs indicate that cystic lesions, particularly branch-duct (BD) type IPMN, are the most commonly diagnosed abnormalities during pancreatic cancer surveillance [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. This occurrence is not unusual, considering the high prevalence of IPMNs, which can reach up to 11.3–25% among the general population aged ≥ 55 years and increases with age [38, 39]. Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that among HRIs, the cumulative incidence of IPMNs is even higher, exceeding 46% [40]. Like PanINs, IPMNs are recognized as precancerous lesions and only a minority progress into PDAC [29]. The ones that do progress, advance from low-grade IPMN to PDAC in approximately 6 years. [41] The rate of progression is associated to the location of the lesion [41]. Based on their location, IPMNs can be categorized into three groups: main duct (MD), branch duct (BD), and mixed type (MT) involving both locations [42]. Individuals with MD and MT-IPMNs have a relative or absolute indication for surgery in the presence of specific risk factors, as outlined in the European evidence-based guidelines [43].
Also, BD-IPMN do not immediately warrant surgery according to guidelines due to their lower malignant potential [42, 43]. Surgical indications for BD-IPMNs include the presence of jaundice or high-risk features, such as dilatation of the main pancreatic duct or enhancing mural nodules [43, 44]. Notably, a study revealed that there is an elevated likelihood of IPMNs progressing to PDAC among HRIs [40]. Therefore, despite acknowledging the low progression rate of BD-IPMN, ongoing surveillance of these lesions remains essential in HRI [42]. In relation to this, a multicenter observational study among HRIs found that BD-IPMNs without any worrisome features or high-risk stigmata showed no difference in the risk of developing PDAC after 5 years of surveillance compared to the general population, depending on age and cyst size [45].
Surveillance methods
Individuals who meet the criteria for HRIs are enrolled in a pancreatic cancer surveillance program. According to current recommendations, intermittent longitudinal imaging, including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/magnetic resonance cholangial pancreatography (MRCP), and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is suggested [9]. Occasionally, computed tomography (CT) may be considered when both modalities are contraindicated, such as in the presence of metal implants or claustrophobia [46, 47]. Nonetheless, CT is not recommended as a first-line test due to the radiation accumulation [9]. Furthermore, due to the limited evidence for pancreatic cancer surveillance, guidelines recommend that surveillance and yield evaluation should be performed in specialized centers only [9].
MRI
Imaging of the pancreas is complex due to the shape of the organ and the central location of the organ in the abdomen. The combination of time-consuming data acquisition and motion due to respiration, gastrointestinal peristalsis, cardiac activity and vascular pulsation can lead to image degradation and motion artifacts [48]. High-quality scans with minimal number of artifacts are needed to accurately assess the pancreas and to enable early detection of pancreatic cancer. Ideally, a 3.0 Tesla scanner is used due to its superior signal-to-noise ratio, leading to higher quality images, however, pancreatic imaging can also be performed using 1.5 Tesla scanners [49]. The MRI sequences that are commonly used in clinical practice to assess the pancreas, include T1-weighted gradient-echo, T2-weighted axial and coronal sequences, and MRCP [49]. All these sequences can be performed within thirty minutes [49]. The T1-weighted MRI images are useful for assessing pancreatic fat and hemorrhage within inflammatory collections [49]. While an increase in pancreatic fat has been linked to the development of PanINs, the routine clinical assessment of pancreatic fat remains constrained [50, 51]. It should be noted that PanINs are microscopic lesions that cannot be directly detected with current imaging techniques [24]. However, literature shows that these lesions are correlated with pancreatic fatty infiltration, which can be seen on imaging and can therefore be used to identify PanINs [52, 53]. The T2-weighted MRI images are usually performed to illustrate the pancreatic ducts and potential cysts [49]. The high pancreatic fluid contrast in this sequence allows for lesion characterization [49]. Beyond the aforementioned MRI sequences, there are additional sequences available for the evaluation of PDAC, however, these are outside the scope of this review. The Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection (PRECEDE) consortium, which consists of a considerable number of institutions where HRIs for PDAC are undergoing surveillance at forty sites across North America, Europe and Asia, has developed a consensus statement to standardize MRI surveillance [54]. This statement includes the specification of which MRI sequences should be used and how to report findings in these individuals [54].
EUS
Besides MRI, EUS is used to evaluate the pancreas. In contrast to MRI, establishing clear-cut recommendations for EUS imaging is challenging [55]. The difficulty stems from the complexity of standardizing EUS procedures as these are strongly dependent on operator expertise, which is a crucial factor in ensuring successful EUS procedures [56]. Clear imaging of the pancreas must first be achieved before any assessment can occur. EUS is used to identify small lesions or as an adjunct for further testing or confirmation when abnormalities are detected on cross-sectional imaging [55]. While EUS can detect lesions up to < 10 mm, small or deeply located lesions may be difficult to visualize [57]. Moreover, obese individuals with increased adipose tissue may limit the visibility of EUS and the presence of gas or other obstructions may limit probe accessibility, making assessment of the pancreas more challenging [58].
In addition to pancreatic evaluation, EUS is also used to diagnose lesions through EUS-fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB). This procedure is identical to EUS, except that a needle is inserted through the working channel of the endoscope to obtain samples from lesions. A meta-analysis examining the diagnostic accuracy of FNA and FNB in solid pancreatic masses showed that FNB demonstrates higher accuracy compared to FNA, with rates of 87% versus 80%, respectively [59].
MRI or EUS
While there is a lack of consensus regarding the variations in diagnostic yield between MRI and EUS, some studies suggest that MRI may be a better option for evaluating cystic lesions, whereas EUS may be more preferred for detecting solid lesions and parenchymal changes [60,61,62]. This preference could be explained by the high soft-tissue contrast of MRI, facilitating the assessment of cystic lesions, and the high spatial resolution of EUS, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of solid lesions and parenchymal alterations [63]. An important advantage of MRI is the ability to evaluate lesion progression over time by comparing consecutive images. Moreover, the preference for the MRI may stem from its less invasive nature and standardized procedures, in contrast to the more operator-dependent nature of EUS [54, 56, 57]. This is even more apparent in the detection of small abnormalities, a task that should be performed by experienced endoscopists. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that expertise is equally important for MRI, as a thorough examination of the pancreas should be conducted by experienced pancreatic radiologists to ensure that significant lesions are not missed [54].
In summary, the two modalities complement rather than replace each other.
Surveillance program
Surveillance typically involves annual longitudinal imaging by MRI and/or EUS. If any concerning lesions are found, such as cysts with worrisome features, solid lesions or main pancreatic duct (MPD) stricture and/or dilatation ≥ 6 mm without a mass, further assessment is conducted using either EUS with FNA/FNB or CT to evaluate the suspicion for malignancy. If the detected lesion is suspected to be malignant, surgery is recommended [9]. For lesions that are not suspected of malignancy, individuals may undergo a shortened surveillance interval to closely monitor the lesion. The determination of the surveillance interval is dependent upon the characteristics of the lesion [9]. When lesions remain stable or diminish over time, individuals may return to the 12-month surveillance interval. However, there are no guidelines specifying exactly when one can return to the regular interval or can even discontinue surveillance. Figure 1 provides a brief overview of a pancreatic cancer surveillance program, including positive indicators of malignancy and characteristics of lesions suggesting a three- or six-month surveillance interval.
Biomarkers
As of today, carbohydrate 19-9 (CA19-9) is the only FDA-approved biomarker for diagnostics of PDAC. However, it is crucial to underscore that CA19-9 is employed exclusively when PDAC is suspected in a clinical setting and is not utilized in surveillance settings, where the a priori likelihood of PDAC varies and influences both positive and negative predictive values. Studies have evaluated the added value of CA19.9 in cancer screening trials and pancreatic cyst surveillance, demonstrating high specificities of up to 99% for PDAC [64, 65]. Nevertheless, these studies also detected significantly low sensitivities, reaching as low as 17% [64, 65]. The ability of CA19-9 to reliably identify PDAC is influenced by several conditions, including liver diseases, pancreatitis, cholangitis, as well as pulmonary and gynecologic diseases, which may lead to potential false-positive results for PDAC [66, 67]. Moreover, studies suggests that certain individuals lack the Lewis antigen and produce minimal to no CA19-9 [68, 69]. Consequently, these individuals may not exhibit a sufficiently elevated CA19-9 level to meet the standardized threshold of > 37–40 U/mL for effective PDAC detection [70]. The variability in CA19-9 levels is, therefore, also dependent on the genetic variations present in individuals. In a related development, Dbouk et al. [71] personalized the CA19-9 cut-off threshold for PDAC based on these genetic variations. This adjustment led to an improvement in AUROC from 0.84 without the personalized cut-off to 0.92 with the personalized cut-off [71]. While these results are promising, further validation is needed before CA19-9 with personalized cut-offs will be implemented in the clinical setting. Lastly, several studies are being conducted on biomarkers that could improve the early detection of PDAC and potentially complement the surveillance programs in the future, but these are beyond the scope of this review [72].
Outcomes of high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer surveillance
Meta-analyses
Several studies have investigated the outcomes of HRIs undergoing pancreatic cancer surveillance. A meta-analysis by Signoretti et al. [60] examined the diagnostic yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance programs for successful target lesions, defined as PanIN-3, high-grade IPMN and any resectable PDAC with R0 pathology. This meta-analysis included all studies encompassing individuals with FPC or other high-risk germline PV carriers who underwent pancreatic cancer surveillance based on MRI and/or EUS. In total 16 studies were included, involving 1588 HRIs, of which 1043 (66.3%) had FPC, 243 (15.4%) had CDKN2A and 140 (8.9%) had HBOC (BRCA1, BRCA2 and PALB2). The diagnostic yield, evaluated separately for different HRI groups, was defined as the pooled prevalence of successful target lesions. This is the number of successful target lesions detected over the entire follow-up period, divided by the total number of individuals undergoing surveillance. The study demonstrated a diagnostic-yield for FPC (3%), PRSS1/SPINK1 (hereditary pancreatitis; 4%), CDKN2A (FM) (5%), BRCA1/2 and PALB2 (HBOC) (6.3%), and STK11/LKB1 (Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; PJS; 12.2%). Moreover, this study showed that five successful target lesions were found per 1000 person-years. This suggests that two hundred HRIs are needed to screen (NNS) to find one successful target lesion within this composition of HRIs.
The meta-analysis by Corral et al. [73] has confirmed these findings and reported an incidence rate for successful target lesions of 7.4/1000 person-years and a NNS of 135. This meta-analysis included 19 studies, with in total 7085 individuals and defined successful yield as individuals with PanIN3, HGD-IPMN or non-metastatic PDAC. This study also calculated the NNS for specific HRI groups, with a NNS of 250 for a PV in BRCA genes, 130 for PRSS1/SPINK1 (hereditary pancreatitis), 71 for STK11/LKB (PJS) and 51 for a PV in the CDKN2A gene. However, it is necessary to point out that both meta-analyses consist of overlapping studies, and this may partially explain the comparable results. Additionally, it is worth emphasizing that these findings include successful target lesions of PanIN3, HGD-IPMN and R0 or non-metastatic PDAC, extending beyond the criteria outlined in the CAPS guidelines, which specifically focus on stage I PDAC [9]. However, given that individuals with PDAC beyond stage I also benefit from surgery, these two meta-analyses effectively illustrate the pooled diagnostic yield for pancreatic cancer surveillance across different HRI groups [74].
Findings from recent studies
The meta-analyses mentioned above included studies up to the year of 2017. Since then, additional studies have been published on the outcomes of HRIs in pancreatic cancer surveillance. Below, we will outline these studies and their corresponding findings.
In 2018, Canto et al. [75] conducted a study on a surveillance cohort of 354 individuals in the United States. The cohort mainly consisted of individuals with FPC (n = 297) and the remaining 57 individuals were carriers of a genetic PV. Notably, 41 of these individuals carried a PV in BRCA1/BRCA2, or PALB2 genes and the entire cohort included only individuals with at least six months of follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 56.4 years and the median follow-up was 5.6 years. During the entire follow-up period a total of 10 (2.8%) PDAC cases were identified with a resection rate of 90% and a three year survival of 85%. Considering the diagnostic yield of the surveillance program, 1 (10%) stage I PDAC, 6 HGD-IPMNs and 4 PanINs-3 were detected during surveillance. In this study, 23/354 (6.5%) individuals underwent surgery for suspected malignancy, only to find out that the lesions were benign. All PDAC cases occurred in individuals with FPC, whose age ranged from 46 to 79 years old. This contrasts with the findings of Overbeek et al. [76], who have found no PDAC cases in the FPC cohort, suggesting a possible increase in the starting age of these individuals. The reasons for this disparity might be clarified by the uncertainty regarding whether genetic testing was conducted on individuals with FPC in the study from Canto et al. [75] Potential PV carriers within the Canto et al. [75] cohort might have increased the risk of PDAC. In fact, a more recent and unrelated evaluation of 5/10 cases of the Canto cohort revealed three cases of true FPC with PDAC, one individual with PV in ATM and one with a PV in the BRCA2 gene [77].
In 2022, Overbeek et al. [76] have published a study on the yield of HRIs undergoing surveillance. This study included a Dutch cohort of 366 individuals, consisting of 201 FPC and 165 PV carriers. All FPC individuals underwent genetic testing and were proven not to be carriers of a known PV. Notably, none of the FPC individuals developed PDAC, and all 10 (2.7%) PDAC cases were identified in the carriers of a germline PV, including 7 in CDKN2A carriers, 2 in STK11/LKB1 and 1 in a BRCA2 carrier. In total 3 (30%) stage I cancers were detected and the resection rate for PDAC was 60%. Median survival for patients with PDAC was 18 months and was adversely influenced by 3 out of 10 cases. Moreover, 11/366 (3%) individuals in this study underwent surgery for a benign lesion. Based on these results with no PDAC cases in the FPC group, the authors speculate whether a higher starting age should be considered for FPC individuals. Furthermore, out of ten cases of PDAC, four (40%) were identified as interval cancers. Interval cancers are cases of pancreatic cancer that present in the period following a negative surveillance examination and before the next examination, which usually takes place after 12 months [78]. The number of interval cancers could be explained by the magnitude of PDAC risk, the chosen surveillance intervals and the limitation of the imaging modalities. A large study involving 2552 HRIs under surveillance revealed that in nearly half of the detected cases (46%), the median time to present a new lesion was 11 months. This implies that in half of the cases, PDAC or HGD will develop before the next scheduled annual surveillance examination. This is a concern, particularly when surveillance is delayed beyond the scheduled time [79]. Although the exact mechanism behind this rapid development and progression of PDAC is unknown, some studies suggest that chromothripsis may contribute to the rapid acquisition of mutations, particularly in the BRCA carriers [80,81,82]. Chromothripsis is a phenomenon characterized by multiple chromosomal rearrangements occurring in one or more chromosomal regions during a single event [80]. Nonetheless, little is still known about the tumorigenesis of PDAC in these individuals [83]. Whole genome sequencing studies may help to understand the carcinogenesis of these interval cases [84].
Another study, conducted in 2022, has examined the outcomes of pancreatic cancer surveillance in 347 CDKN2A germline PV carriers in the Netherlands [85]. The median enrollment age was 48.6 years and the median follow-up was 5.6 years. The study revealed an overall median survival of 26.8 months with an overall 5-year survival rate of 32.4%. In total 36 (10.4%) PDAC cases were detected. Out of all 36 detected PDAC cases, 12 (33.3%) were detected at stage I and 5 (13.9%) presented as interval cancers. Moreover, 27 (75%) individuals with PDAC underwent surgery. Throughout the entire follow-up, 7 out of 347 (2%) individuals underwent surgery for benign disease. In a separate study, the same cohort was used to investigate if surveillance was of added value compared to non-surveillance. So comparison was made between HRIs undergoing surveillance and PDAC diagnosis within the general population without surveillance. The study has shown that, even after accounting for potential lead times of 3, 6, 12, and 15 months, the surveillance cohort demonstrated a higher median overall survival compared to the non-surveillance cohort (23.9 months, 22.0 months, 19.7 months and 15.2 months, respectively, vs. 5.2 months) [86].
In 2023, a study was conducted on BRCA1/2 PV carriers and involved a total of 180 individuals [87]. The cohort included 57 (31.7%) BRCA1, 121 (67.2%) BRCA2 and 2 (1.1%) individuals with PV in other genes (APC, MSH6 and MSH2). It is worth highlighting that a significant proportion (82%) of the study cohort consisted of Ashkenazi Jewish individuals, who typically carry specific founder allele mutations [88]. However, the impact of this on PDAC risk and survival outcomes compared to individuals with different PV within the BRCA genes is not known. In this study, individuals underwent annual surveillance using MRI and EUS, with the surveillance interval being adjusted as necessary in accordance with the CAPS guidelines [9]. All BRCA1/2 carriers with at least one FDR/SDR with PDAC were enrolled in the surveillance program at the age of 45 or 10 years earlier than the age of the youngest relative diagnosed with PDAC. Additionally, 64 (35.6%) BRCA1/2 carriers without a family history were included in the surveillance program due to their concern of developing PDAC. Over a median follow-up period of 48 months, a total of 4 (2.2%) cases of PDAC were detected, all of which occurred in the BRCA2 carriers, with one individual also carrying the MSH2 PV. Out of the 4 PDAC cases, only 1 (25%) was identified at stage I. The resection rate for all 4 cases was 75%, as one of them had distant metastasis and could not be resected. Additionally, during the entire surveillance period, 2/180 (1.1%) individuals underwent surgery for benign lesions. Unfortunately, median survival could not be determined with four cases. This could have been interesting information since BRCA carriers may benefit from selective poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, potentially resulting in an increased overall survival [89].
Having provided in-depth summaries of the most recent studies, it is important to acknowledge that additional studies have been conducted on pancreatic cancer surveillance among HRIs. All of these studies, alongside the earlier discussed studies and those included in the meta-analyses are summarized in Table 2.
Future perspectives
Despite pancreatic cancer surveillance, PDAC cases are often diagnosed at a late stage (stage II or higher). A meta-analysis examining late-stage PDAC detection in HRIs undergoing pancreatic cancer surveillance showed that late-stage PDAC (1.7 per 1000 patient-years) represented a substantial proportion of the overall detection rate of PDAC (3.3 per 1000 patient-years) [109]. Therefore, novel methods should be explored for the early detection of PDAC.
Interestingly, a study conducted by Hoogenboom et al. [110] investigated the detectability of pancreatic cancer before PDAC diagnosis and has found the potential suspicion of a pancreatic mass in 50–70% of patients, with an abdominal CT scan for different indications, up to 3 years prior to PDAC diagnosis. Essentially, this suggests that a significant proportion of pancreatic cancers exhibit observable changes within this timeframe. However, not all changes in the pancreas are caused by PDAC. For instance, pancreatitis can mimic neoplastic progression and may be challenging to distinguish from PDAC [111]. Notably, recent research in murine models demonstrated the ability to differentiate between acute pancreatitis and PDAC using deuterium metabolic MRI [112]. In this study, deuterated glucose uptake and conversion into lactate, attributable to the Warburg effect, was evident in all PDAC cases but consistently non-existent in cases of pancreatitis [112]. While these findings are promising, they still have to be translated from murine models into humans. Many more potential radiomic biomarkers are being developed for PDAC, including the use of artificial intelligence [113].
Another interesting development is the use of a blood-based biomarker based on the glycosylation of proteins [114]. Acknowledging that a single gene can give rise to multiple proteins underscores the importance of exploring not only at the genetic level but also at the proteomic level in the search for potential biomarkers. In a study conducted by Vreeker et al. [115], an N-glycan profile was established for PDAC detection, demonstrating a sensitivity and specificity of 0.85–0.75 and 0.72–0.71, respectively. Nevertheless, these findings require further validation. Additionally, an evaluation is necessary to determine whether these N-glycans can effectively discriminate between PDAC and other benign pancreatic diseases, a challenge that persists in the routine clinical setting [116].
Moreover, while a pancreatic cancer surveillance program captures numerous cystic lesions, the limited ability to differentiate between malignant and benign cysts still leads to the unnecessary resection of benign cysts [117]. Genomic-based biomarkers show significant promise in addressing this challenge [118]. In a multicenter study investigating targeted next-generation sequencing using pancreatic cyst fluid, a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 98% were observed in detecting the presence of advanced neoplasia in these cysts [119]. Currently, surveillance relies solely on imaging, which is suboptimal [85]. In the future, complementing biomarkers will enhance the early detection of PDAC in HRIs.
Additionally, guidelines do not provide a recommendation regarding the age at which surveillance should be discontinued [9]. Establishing a stopping age is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of surveillance and minimize the burden. However, as every individual ages differently, with variations in fitness and health, determining a universal cutoff age is unrealistic. Reasons to discontinue surveillance, include limited life expectancy and potential risks associated with the procedures. Elderly are more likely to die from non-cancer-related causes and would subsequently no longer benefit from early PDAC detection [120]. Moreover, patients must meet a certain level of physical fitness to undergo procedures, otherwise early PDAC detection may not yield significant benefits, as disease treatment will become unfeasible. More research needs to be conducted in this field to offer guidance on what criteria to consider in assessing the added value of surveillance in older individuals or potentially develop a prediction model that can determine whether an individual will benefit from surveillance or not.
Lastly, due to the relative rarity of PDAC, conducting studies on early detection methods is challenging. Fortunately, the PRECEDE consortium and CAPS consortium gather extensive data from medical centers around the world and foster collaboration with institutions globally to facilitate the development of early detection methods [9, 57].
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Stoffel EM, Brand RE, Goggins M (2023) Pancreatic cancer: changing epidemiology and new approaches to risk assessment, early detection, and prevention. Gastroenterology 164(5):752–765
Kenner BJ, Chari ST, Maitra A, Srivastava S, Cleeter DF, Go VL et al (2016) Early detection of pancreatic cancer-a defined future using lessons from other cancers: a white paper. Pancreas 45(8):1073–1079
Rawla P, Sunkara T, Gaduputi V (2019) Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer: global trends, etiology and risk factors. World J Oncol 10(1):10–27
Werner J, Combs SE, Springfeld C, Hartwig W, Hackert T, Büchler MW (2013) Advanced-stage pancreatic cancer: therapy options. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 10(6):323–333
Stathis A, Moore MJ (2010) Advanced pancreatic carcinoma: current treatment and future challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7(3):163–172
Cancer Stat Facts: Pancreatic Cancer National Cancer Institute (2023). https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/pancreas.html
The Lancet Gastroenterology H (2019) Pancreatic cancer screening: more harms than benefits? Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(4):255
Klatte DCF, Onnekink AM, Hinnen C, van Doorn R, Potjer TP, van Leerdam ME et al (2023) Psychosocial issues of individuals undergoing surveillance for increased risk of melanoma and pancreatic cancer due to a germline CDKN2A variant: a focus group study. J Genet Couns. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgc4.1820
Goggins M, Overbeek KA, Brand R, Syngal S, Del Chiaro M, Bartsch DK et al (2020) Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut 69(1):7–17
Sawhney MS, Calderwood AH, Thosani NC, Rebbeck TR, Wani S, Canto MI et al (2022) ASGE guideline on screening for pancreatic cancer in individuals with genetic susceptibility: summary and recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 95(5):817–826
Gabriele C, Salvatore P, Silvia C, Giovanni B, Erica S, Luca F et al (2020) Italian registry of families at risk of pancreatic cancer: AISP Familial Pancreatic Cancer Study Group. Dig Liver Dis 52(10):1126–1130
Aslanian HR, Lee JH, Canto MI (2020) AGA Clinical practice update on pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals: expert review. Gastroenterology 159(1):358–362
Levink IJM, Visser IJ, Koopmann BDM, van Driel LMJW, Poley JW, Cahen DL et al (2022) Protein biomarkers in pancreatic juice and serum for identification of pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 96(5):801–13.e2
Ohmoto A, Yachida S, Morizane C (2019) Genomic features and clinical management of patients with hereditary pancreatic cancer syndromes and familial pancreatic cancer. Int J Mol Sci 20(3):561
Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban RH, Offerhaus GJ, Poley JW, Kamel I et al (2013) International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 62(3):339–347
Klatte DCF, Wallace MB, Löhr M, Bruno MJ, van Leerdam ME (2022) Hereditary pancreatic cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 58–59:101783
Ulanja MB, Moody AE, Beutler BD, Antwi-Amoabeng D, Rahman GA, Alese OB (2022) Early-onset pancreatic cancer: a review of molecular mechanisms, management, and survival. Oncotarget 13:828–841
Tsang ES, Topham JT, Karasinska JM, Lee MKC, Williamson LM, Mendis S et al (2021) Delving into early-onset pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: how does age fit in? Clin Cancer Res 27(1):246–254
Ginsburg GS, Wu RR, Orlando LA (2019) Family health history: underused for actionable risk assessment. Lancet 394(10198):596–603
Shah I, Silva-Santisteban A, Germansky KA, Kandasamy C, Mlabasati J, Huang DC et al (2022) Association between family history and risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variants. Pancreas 51(7):733–738
Roch AM, Schneider J, Carr RA, Lancaster WP, House MG, Zyromski NJ et al (2019) Are BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation patients underscreened for pancreatic adenocarcinoma? J Surg Oncol 119(6):777–783
Klein AP, Brune KA, Petersen GM, Goggins M, Tersmette AC, Offerhaus GJ et al (2004) Prospective risk of pancreatic cancer in familial pancreatic cancer kindreds. Cancer Res 64(7):2634–2638
Shin DW, Kim J (2020) The American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition staging system for the pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is it better than the 7th edition? Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 9(1):98–100
Brosens LA, Hackeng WM, Offerhaus GJ, Hruban RH, Wood LD (2015) Pancreatic adenocarcinoma pathology: changing “landscape.” J Gastrointest Oncol 6(4):358–374
Cornish TC, Hruban RH (2011) Pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Surg Pathol Clin 4(2):523–535
Longnecker DS, Suriawinata AA (2022) Incidence of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia in an autopsy series. Pancreas 51(4):305–309
Peters MLB, Eckel A, Mueller PP, Tramontano AC, Weaver DT, Lietz A et al (2018) Progression to pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia: results of a simulation model. Pancreatology 18(8):928–934
Kiemen A, Braxton AM, Grahn MP, Han KS, Babu JM, Reichel R, et al. In situ characterization of the 3D microanatomy of the pancreas and pancreatic cancer at single cell resolution. bioRxiv. 2020:2020.12.08.416909
Weissman S, Thaker R, Zeffren N, Sarfaraz R, Dedousis J (2019) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm of the pancreas: understanding the basics and beyond. Cureus 11(1):e3867
Bartsch DK, Matthäi E, Mintziras I, Bauer C, Figiel J, Sina-Boemers M et al (2021) The German National Case Collection for Familial Pancreatic Carcinoma (FaPaCa)—knowledge gained in 20 years. Dtsch Arztebl Int 118(10):163–168
Bar-Mashiah A, Aronson A, Naparst M, DiMaio CJ, Lucas AL (2020) Elevated hemoglobin A1c is associated with the presence of pancreatic cysts in a high-risk pancreatic surveillance program. BMC Gastroenterol 20(1):161
McNamara GPJ, Ali KN, Vyas S, Huynh T, Nyland M, Almanza D et al (2019) Characteristics and clinical outcomes of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: a descriptive analysis from a comprehensive cancer center. Gastrointest Disord (Basel) 1(1):106–119
Paiella S, Capurso G, Cavestro GM, Butturini G, Pezzilli R, Salvia R et al (2019) Results of first-round of surveillance in individuals at high-risk of pancreatic cancer from the AISP (Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas) Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 114(4):665–670
Sheel ARG, Harrison S, Sarantitis I, Nicholson JA, Hanna T, Grocock C et al (2019) Identification of cystic lesions by secondary screening of Familial Pancreatic Cancer (FPC) kindreds is not associated with the stratified risk of cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 114(1):155–164
Barnes CA, Krzywda E, Lahiff S, McDowell D, Christians KK, Knechtges P et al (2018) Development of a high risk pancreatic screening clinic using 3.0 T MRI. Fam Cancer 17(1):101–111
DaVee T, Coronel E, Papafragkakis C, Thaiudom S, Lanke G, Chakinala RC et al (2018) Pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk individuals with germline genetic mutations. Gastrointest Endosc 87(6):1443–1450
Lachter J, Rosenberg C, Hananiya T, Khamaysi I, Klein A, Yassin K et al (2018) Screening to detect precursor lesions of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in high-risk individuals: a single-center experience. Rambam Maimonides Med J 9(4):e0029
Giulia Z, Marianna S, Stefano C, Massimo F, Paolo Giorgio A, Gabriele C (2019) Systematic review and meta-analysis: prevalence of incidentally detected pancreatic cystic lesions in asymptomatic individuals. Pancreatology 19(1):2–9
Kimura W, Nagai H, Kuroda A, Muto T, Esaki Y (1995) Analysis of small cystic lesions of the pancreas. Int J Pancreatol 18(3):197–206
Kasper AO, Brechtje DMK, Iris JML, Matteo T, Nicole SE, Paolo Giorgio A et al (2024) Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms in high-risk individuals: incidence, growth rate, and malignancy risk. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 22(1):62-71.e7
Grützmann R, Niedergethmann M, Pilarsky C, Klöppel G, Saeger HD (2010) Intraductal papillary mucinous tumors of the pancreas: biology, diagnosis, and treatment. Oncologist 15(12):1294–1309
Levink I, Bruno MJ, Cahen DL (2018) Management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: controversies in guidelines and future perspectives. Curr Treat Opt Gastroenterol 16(3):316–332
European evidence-based guidelines on pancreatic cystic neoplasms (2018) Gut 67(5):789–804
Chidambaram S, Kawka M, Gall TM, Cunningham D, Jiao LR (2022) Can we predict the progression of premalignant pancreatic cystic tumors to ductal adenocarcinoma? Fut Oncol 18(23):2605–2612
Giovanni M, Tommaso P, Anna B, Youngmin H, Hye-Sol J, Wooil K et al (2023) Surveillance for presumed BD-IPMN of the pancreas: stability, size, and age identify targets for discontinuation. Gastroenterology 165(4):1016–24.e5
Ghadimi M, Sapra A (2023) Magnetic resonance imaging contraindications. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island
Mekky MA, Abbas WA (2014) Endoscopic ultrasound in gastroenterology: from diagnosis to therapeutic implications. World J Gastroenterol 20(24):7801–7807
Maccioni F, Busato L, Valenti A, Cardaccio S, Longhi A, Catalano C (2023) Magnetic resonance imaging of the gastrointestinal tract: current role, recent advancements and future prospectives. Diagnostics 13(14):2410
Hill DV, Tirkes T (2020) Advanced MR imaging of the pancreas. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 28(3):353–367
Mahyoub MA, Elhoumed M, Maqul AH, Almezgagi M, Abbas M, Jiao Y et al (2023) Fatty infiltration of the pancreas: a systematic concept analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 10:1227188
Dei H, Natsume S, Okuno M, Kawakatsu S, Hosoda W, Matsuo K et al (2022) Impact of pancreatic fat infiltration on postoperative pancreatic fistula occurrence in patients undergoing invagination pancreaticojejunostomy. HPB (Oxford) 24(12):2119–2124
Rebours V, Gaujoux S, d’Assignies G, Sauvanet A, Ruszniewski P, Lévy P et al (2015) Obesity and fatty pancreatic infiltration are risk factors for Pancreatic Precancerous Lesions (PanIN). Clin Cancer Res 21(15):3522–3528
Yao WJ, Guo Z, Wang L, Li K, Saba L, Guglielmi G et al (2020) Pancreas fat quantification with quantitative CT: an MRI correlation analysis. Clin Radiol 75(5):397.e1-397.e6
Huang C, Simeone DM, Luk L, Hecht EM, Khatri G, Kambadakone A et al (2022) Standardization of MRI screening and reporting in individuals with elevated risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: Consensus Statement of the PRECEDE Consortium. Am J Roentgenol 219(6):903–914
Tamas AG, James F, Michael W, Lauren K, Eileen J, Richard K et al (2022) Standardization of EUS imaging and reporting in high-risk individuals of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: consensus statement of the Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection Consortium. Gastrointest Endosc 95(4):723–32.e7
Del Vecchio BG, Palmieri G, Giannarelli D, Formica V, Portarena I, Nardecchia A et al (2021) Factors influencing diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic and biliary tumors. Scand J Gastroenterol 56(4):498–504
Gonda TA, Everett JN, Wallace M, Simeone DM (2021) Recommendations for a more organized and effective approach to the early detection of pancreatic cancer from the PRECEDE (Pancreatic Cancer Early Detection) Consortium. Gastroenterology 161(6):1751–1757
Uppot RN (2018) Technical challenges of imaging & image-guided interventions in obese patients. Br J Radiol 91(1089):20170931
van Riet PA, Erler NS, Bruno MJ, Cahen DL (2021) Comparison of fine-needle aspiration and fine-needle biopsy devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid lesions: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 53(4):411–423
Signoretti M, Bruno MJ, Zerboni G, Poley JW, Delle Fave G, Capurso G (2018) Results of surveillance in individuals at high-risk of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. United Eur Gastroenterol J 6(4):489–499
Kogekar N, Diaz KE, Weinberg AD, Lucas AL (2020) Surveillance of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer with EUS and MRI: a meta-analysis. Pancreatology 20(8):1739–1746
Siegel A, Friedman M, Feldman D, Krishnan K, Casey B, Pisuchpen N et al (2022) Concordance of EUS and MRI/MRCP findings among high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic cancer screening. Pancreatology 22(7):951–958
Lu X, Zhang S, Ma C, Peng C, Lv Y, Zou X (2015) The diagnostic value of EUS in pancreatic cystic neoplasms compared with CT and MRI. Endosc Ultrasound 4(4):324–329
Fahrmann JF, Schmidt CM, Mao X, Irajizad E, Loftus M, Zhang J et al (2021) Lead-time trajectory of CA19-9 as an anchor marker for pancreatic cancer early detection. Gastroenterology 160(4):1373–83.e6
Levink IJM, Jaarsma SC, Koopmann BDM, van Riet PA, Overbeek KA, Meziani J et al (2023) The additive value of CA19.9 monitoring in a pancreatic cyst surveillance program. United Eur Gastroenterol J 11(7):601–611
Kim S, Park BK, Seo JH, Choi J, Choi JW, Lee CK et al (2020) Carbohydrate antigen 19–9 elevation without evidence of malignant or pancreatobiliary diseases. Sci Rep 10(1):8820
Loosen SH, Neumann UP, Trautwein C, Roderburg C, Luedde T (2017) Current and future biomarkers for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Tumor Biol 39(6):1010428317692231
Guo M, Luo G, Lu R, Shi W, Cheng H, Lu Y et al (2017) Distribution of Lewis and Secretor polymorphisms and corresponding CA19-9 antigen expression in a Chinese population. FEBS Open Bio 7(11):1660–1671
Abe T, Koi C, Kohi S, Song KB, Tamura K, Macgregor-Das A et al (2020) Gene variants that affect levels of circulating tumor markers increase identification of patients with pancreatic cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 18(5):1161–9.e5
Lee T, Teng TZJ, Shelat VG (2020) Carbohydrate antigen 19–9 - tumor marker: past, present, and future. World J Gastrointest Surg 12(12):468–490
Dbouk M, Abe T, Koi C, Ando Y, Saba H, Abou Diwan E et al (2023) Diagnostic performance of a tumor marker gene test to personalize serum CA19-9 reference ranges. Clin Cancer Res 29(20):4178–4185
Guo J, Xie K, Zheng S (2016) Molecular biomarkers of pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and their implications in early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention of pancreatic cancer. Int J Biol Sci 12(3):292–301
Corral JE, Mareth KF, Riegert-Johnson DL, Das A, Wallace MB (2019) Diagnostic yield from screening asymptomatic individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 17(1):41–53
Strobel O, Lorenz P, Hinz U, Gaida M, König A-K, Hank T et al (2022) Actual five-year survival after upfront resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: who beats the odds? Ann Surg 275(5):962–971
Canto MI, Almario JA, Schulick RD, Yeo CJ, Klein A, Blackford A et al (2018) Risk of neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer undergoing long-term surveillance. Gastroenterology 155(3):740–51.e2
Overbeek KA, Levink IJM, Koopmann BDM, Harinck F, Konings I, Ausems M et al (2022) Long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals. Gut 71(6):1152–1160
Abe T, Blackford AL, Tamura K, Ford M, McCormick P, Chuidian M et al (2019) Deleterious germline mutations are a risk factor for neoplastic progression among high-risk individuals undergoing pancreatic surveillance. J Clin Oncol 37(13):1070–1080
Cornford E, Sharma N (2019) Interval cancers and duty of candour, a UK perspective. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 11(2):89–93
Overbeek KA, Goggins MG, Dbouk M, Levink IJM, Koopmann BDM, Chuidian M et al (2022) Timeline of development of pancreatic cancer and implications for successful early detection in high-risk individuals. Gastroenterology 162(3):772–85.e4
Krupina K, Goginashvili A, Cleveland DW (2023) Scrambling the genome in cancer: causes and consequences of complex chromosome rearrangements. Nat Rev Genet 25:196–210
Usman OH, Zhang L, Xie G, Kocher HM, Hwang C-i, Wang YJ et al (2022) Genomic heterogeneity in pancreatic cancer organoids and its stability with culture. npj Genom Med 7(1):71
Waddell N, Pajic M, Patch AM, Chang DK, Kassahn KS, Bailey P et al (2015) Whole genomes redefine the mutational landscape of pancreatic cancer. Nature 518(7540):495–501
Badheeb M, Abdelrahim A, Esmail A, Umoru G, Abboud K, Al-Najjar E et al (2022) Pancreatic tumorigenesis: precursors, genetic risk factors and screening. Curr Oncol 29(11):8693–8719
Rajesh S, Cox MJ, Runau F (2021) Molecular advances in pancreatic cancer: a genomic, proteomic and metabolomic approach. World J Gastroenterol 27(31):5171–5180
Klatte DCF, Boekestijn B, Wasser M, Feshtali Shahbazi S, Ibrahim IS, Mieog JSD et al (2022) Pancreatic cancer surveillance in carriers of a germline CDKN2A pathogenic variant: yield and outcomes of a 20-year prospective follow-up. J Clin Oncol 40(28):3267–3277
Klatte DCF, Boekestijn B, Onnekink AM, Dekker FW, van der Geest LG, Wasser M et al (2023) Surveillance for pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals leads to improved outcomes: a propensity score-matched analysis. Gastroenterology 164:1223–1231
Laish I, Schechter M, Dancour A, Lieberman S, Levi Z, Goldberg Y et al (2024) The benefit of pancreatic cancer surveillance in carriers of germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants. Cancer 130:256–266
Solano AR, Liria NC, Jalil FS, Faggionato DM, Mele PG, Mampel A et al (2018) BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations other than the founder alleles among Ashkenazi Jewish in the population of Argentina. Front Oncol 8:323
Principe DR (2022) Precision medicine for BRCA/PALB2-mutated pancreatic cancer and emerging strategies to improve therapeutic responses to PARP inhibition. Cancers (Basel) 14(4):897
Dbouk M, Katona BW, Brand RE, Chak A, Syngal S, Farrell JJ et al (2022) The multicenter cancer of pancreas screening study: impact on stage and survival. J Clin Oncol 40(28):3257–3266
Chang MC, Wu CH, Yang SH, Liang PC, Chen BB, Jan IS et al (2017) Pancreatic cancer screening in different risk individuals with family history of pancreatic cancer-a prospective cohort study in Taiwan. Am J Cancer Res 7(2):357–369
Joergensen MT, Gerdes AM, Sorensen J, Schaffalitzky de Muckadell O, Mortensen MB (2016) Is screening for pancreatic cancer in high-risk groups cost-effective?—Experience from a Danish national screening program. Pancreatology 16(4):584–592
Vasen H, Ibrahim I, Ponce CG, Slater EP, Matthäi E, Carrato A et al (2016) Benefit of surveillance for pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals: outcome of long-term prospective follow-up studies from three European Expert Centers. J Clin Oncol 34(17):2010–2019
Harinck F, Konings IC, Kluijt I, Poley JW, van Hooft JE, van Dullemen HM et al (2016) A multicentre comparative prospective blinded analysis of EUS and MRI for screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. Gut 65(9):1505–1513
Del Chiaro M, Verbeke CS, Kartalis N, Pozzi Mucelli R, Gustafsson P, Hansson J et al (2015) Short-term results of a magnetic resonance imaging-based swedish screening program for individuals at risk for pancreatic cancer. JAMA Surg 150(6):512–518
Mocci E, Guillen-Ponce C, Earl J, Marquez M, Solera J, Salazar-López MT et al (2015) PanGen-Fam: Spanish registry of hereditary pancreatic cancer. Eur J Cancer 51(14):1911–1917
Sud A, Wham D, Catalano M, Guda NM (2014) Promising outcomes of screening for pancreatic cancer by genetic testing and endoscopic ultrasound. Pancreas 43(3):458–461
Potjer TP, Schot I, Langer P, Heverhagen JT, Wasser MNJM, Slater EP et al (2013) Variation in precursor lesions of pancreatic cancer among high-risk groups. Clin Cancer Res 19(2):442–449
Al-Sukhni W, Borgida A, Rothenmund H, Holter S, Semotiuk K, Grant R et al (2012) Screening for pancreatic cancer in a high-risk cohort: an eight-year experience. J Gastrointest Surg 16(4):771–783
Canto MI, Hruban RH, Fishman EK, Kamel IR, Schulick R, Zhang Z et al (2012) Frequent detection of pancreatic lesions in asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Gastroenterology 142(4):796–804 (quiz e14-5)
Zubarik R, Gordon SR, Lidofsky SD, Anderson SR, Pipas JM, Badger G et al (2011) Screening for pancreatic cancer in a high-risk population with serum CA 19–9 and targeted EUS: a feasibility study. Gastrointest Endosc 74(1):87–95
Ludwig E, Olson SH, Bayuga S, Simon J, Schattner MA, Gerdes H et al (2011) Feasibility and yield of screening in relatives from familial pancreatic cancer families. Am J Gastroenterol 106(5):946–954
Vasen HF, Wasser M, van Mil A, Tollenaar RA, Konstantinovski M, Gruis NA et al (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging surveillance detects early-stage pancreatic cancer in carriers of a p16-Leiden mutation. Gastroenterology 140(3):850–856
Poley JW, Kluijt I, Gouma DJ, Harinck F, Wagner A, Aalfs C et al (2009) The yield of first-time endoscopic ultrasonography in screening individuals at a high risk of developing pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 104(9):2175–2181
Langer P, Kann PH, Fendrich V, Habbe N, Schneider M, Sina M et al (2009) Five years of prospective screening of high-risk individuals from families with familial pancreatic cancer. Gut 58(10):1410–1418
Canto MI, Goggins M, Hruban RH, Petersen GM, Giardiello FM, Yeo C et al (2006) Screening for early pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: a prospective controlled study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 4(6):766–781 (quiz 665)
Canto MI, Goggins M, Yeo CJ, Griffin C, Axilbund JE, Brune K et al (2004) Screening for pancreatic neoplasia in high-risk individuals: an EUS-based approach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2(7):606–621
Kimmey MB, Bronner MP, Byrd DR, Brentnall TA (2002) Screening and surveillance for hereditary pancreatic cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 56(4 Suppl):S82–S86
Chhoda A, Vodusek Z, Wattamwar K, Mukherjee E, Gunderson C, Grimshaw A et al (2022) Late-stage pancreatic cancer detected during high-risk individual surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 162(3):786–798
Hoogenboom SA, Engels MML, Chuprin AV, van Hooft JE, LeGout JD, Wallace MB et al (2022) Prevalence, features, and explanations of missed and misinterpreted pancreatic cancer on imaging: a matched case-control study. Abdom Radiol (NY) 47(12):4160–4172
Umans DS, Hoogenboom SA, Sissingh NJ, Lekkerkerker SJ, Verdonk RC, van Hooft JE (2021) Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: a case of the chicken or the egg. World J Gastroenterol 27(23):3148–3157
Montrazi ET, Sasson K, Agemy L, Peters DC, Brenner O, Scherz A et al (2023) High-sensitivity deuterium metabolic MRI differentiates acute pancreatitis from pancreatic cancers in murine models. Sci Rep 13(1):19998
Yao L, Zhang Z, Keles E, Yazici C, Tirkes T, Bagci U (2023) A review of deep learning and radiomics approaches for pancreatic cancer diagnosis from medical imaging. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 39(5):436–447
Levink IJM, Klatte DCF, Hanna-Sawires RG, Vreeker GCM, Ibrahim IS, van der Burgt YEM et al (2022) Longitudinal changes of serum protein N-Glycan levels for earlier detection of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals. Pancreatology 22(4):497–506
Vreeker GCM, Hanna-Sawires RG, Mohammed Y, Bladergroen MR, Nicolardi S, Dotz V et al (2020) Serum N-Glycome analysis reveals pancreatic cancer disease signatures. Cancer Med 9(22):8519–8529
James MH-S, David B, Nikolaos C, Bobby VMD, Ravi M, Robert PS et al (2023) Investigating misdiagnosis of suspected cancer among patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy: three decades of experience. HPB 26(3):344–351
Farrell JJ (2017) Pancreatic cysts and guidelines. Dig Dis Sci 62(7):1827–1839
Michael Johannes P, Kevin Tony J, Elham A, Su Jin L, Salvador HM et al (2023) Predictive ability of pancreatic cyst fluid biomarkers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pancreatology 23(7):868–877
Paniccia A, Polanco PM, Boone BA, Wald AI, McGrath K, Brand RE et al (2023) Prospective, multi-institutional, real-time next-generation sequencing of pancreatic cyst fluid reveals diverse genomic alterations that improve the clinical management of pancreatic cysts. Gastroenterology 164(1):117–33.e7
Yang P, Zheng Y, Chen J, Ma H, Yu K, Chen Y et al (2021) Immediate risk of non-cancer deaths after a cancer diagnosis. BMC Cancer 21(1):963
Acknowledgements
Figure 1 made in Biorender.com. Icons in Fig. 1 made by Freepik from www.flaticon.com.
Funding
The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Aleksander M. Bogdanski, Derk C.F. Klatte, Monique E. van Leerdam. Literature search: Aleksander M. Bogdanski. Writing—original draft preparation: Aleksander M. Bogdanski. Writing—review and editing: Bas Boekestijn, Bert A. Bonsing, Derk C.F. Klatte, J.E. van Hooft, Martin N.J.M. Wasser, Monique E. van Leerdam.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Bogdanski, A.M., van Hooft, J.E., Boekestijn, B. et al. Aspects and outcomes of surveillance for individuals at high-risk of pancreatic cancer. Familial Cancer 23, 323–339 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00368-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00368-1