Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28879469›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in gastroenterology2017

Pancreatic Cancer Screening.

Koushik K Das, Dayna Early

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 3'-sulfated LewisFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  5. Current status of inherited pancreatic cancer.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2022
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Anti-tumor effect and mechanistic study of elemene on pancreatic carcinoma.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Koushik K DasDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue Campus, Box 8124, St. Louis, MO, 63110-1093, USA. k.das@wustl.edu.
Dayna EarlyDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue Campus, Box 8124, St. Louis, MO, 63110-1093, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review describes the rationale for pancreatic cancer screening, outlines groups that are at elevated risk for pancreatic cancer, and summarizes the relative risk in each setting. We also review the methods available for performing pancreatic cancer screening and the recommended screening intervals. RECENT

findingsSeveral genetic mutations have been identified that increase the risk for pancreatic cancer. Most are rare, however, and at-risk individuals are most often those with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer (with multiple family members affected) but no identifiable genetic mutation. Known genetic syndromes that increase the risk for pancreatic cancer include hereditary pancreatitis, familial atypical mole and multiple melanoma, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, Lynch syndrome, BRCA mutations, and Li-Fraumeni syndrome. Genetic testing should be performed in conjunction with genetic counseling, and testing of an affected family member is preferred if possible.The goal of pancreatic cancer screening is to identify pancreatic cancer at an early, curable stage or, ideally, to identify precancerous lesions that can be resected to prevent the development of cancer. Imaging can be performed with either endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). These techniques are generally considered to be complementary, although an advantage of EUS is that cysts or solid lesions can be sampled at the time of the procedure. Published results of small cohorts of high-risk patients in pancreatic cancer screening programs have demonstrated a high prevalence of small cystic lesions identified on EUS or MRCP, which often represent side-branch intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN). Knowledge of conditions and syndromes that increase pancreatic cancer risk allows one to identify those patients that may benefit from pancreatic cancer screening. As we gather evidence from large, international, multicenter cohorts of patients at high-risk for pancreatic cancer who are undergoing screening and as our understanding of the genetic underpinnings of pancreatic cancer improve, recommendations on screening will continue to be refined.

Indexed as

BRCAHereditary pancreatic cancerLynch syndromePancreatic cancerPancreatic cancer screeningPeutz-Jegher’s syndrome

Identifiers

PMID28879469
OpenAlexW2750845216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.