Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31386140›Full record

SynthesisJAMA2019

Screening for Pancreatic Cancer: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Nora B Henrikson, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Paula R Blasi, Caitlin C Morrison, Matt Nguyen, Venu G Pillarisetty, Jennifer S Lin

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04743479 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Artificial Intelligence-based Health Information Management System and Key Technology Study of Early Screening and Hierarchical Diagnosis and Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer

TypeobservationalSponsorChanghai HospitalRan2020 to 2030Enrolled5,000ConditionsPancreatic Cancer, Diabetes, Familial Pancreatic Cancer, Pancreatic Cystic NeoplasmArmshigh-resolution MRI/CT examinations
NCT07700992 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

An Exosome-based and Machine-learning-powered Liquid Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Early-detection and Disease Monitoring

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversità Vita-Salute San RaffaeleRan2026 to 2032Enrolled600ConditionsFamilial Pancreatic Cancer, Familial Pancreatic Carcinoma, Hereditary Pancreatic Cancer, Hereditary PancreatitisArmsPANXEON
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Strategy for early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Challenges of early detection of pancreatic cancer.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Improving outcomes of patients with pancreatic cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Nora B HenriksonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Seattle.
Erin J Aiello BowlesKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Seattle.
Paula R BlasiKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Seattle.
Caitlin C MorrisonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Seattle.
Matt NguyenKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Seattle.
Venu G PillarisettyHepatopancreatobiliary Service, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle.
Jennifer S LinKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates Evidence-based Practice Center, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

AHRQ HHS HHSA290201500007I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is the third most common cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States. Objective: To systematically review benefits and harms of screening for pancreatic adenocarcinoma to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, from January 2002 through April 27, 2018; surveillance through March 22, 2019. Study Selection: Studies of adults with or without risk factors for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (eg, family history of pancreatic cancer, personal history of new-onset diabetes) undergoing imaging-based screening; studies of treatment for adults with screen-detected or asymptomatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Included study designs were randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized controlled intervention studies, diagnostic accuracy studies with a reference standard, cohort studies, and case-control studies (for evaluation of harms only). Studies consisting entirely of populations with known genetic syndromes associated with pancreatic cancer were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and rated included studies for quality; data were quantitatively analyzed to calculate a pooled diagnostic yield and narratively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, morbidity, or quality of life; diagnostic accuracy of screening tests; any harm of screening or treatment. Results: Thirteen fair-quality prospective cohort screening studies (N = 1317) conducted predominantly in populations at high familial risk for pancreatic adenocarcinoma were included. No studies reported on the effect of screening on morbidity or mortality or on the effectiveness of treatment for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Although no studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of screening tests, all 13 studies reported the diagnostic yield. Yields ranged from 0 to 75 cases per 1000 persons in studies using endoscopic ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computed tomography-based screening. In total, 18 cases of pancreatic adenocarcinoma were detected in 1156 adults at increased familial risk and 0 cases were detected in 161 average-risk adults. In 8 studies (n = 675) assessing procedural harms of screening, no serious harms from initial screening were reported. Two studies (n = 271) found no evidence of psychosocial harms related to screening. Evidence of surgical harms was limited. Conclusions and Relevance: Imaging-based screening in groups at high familial risk can detect pancreatic adenocarcinoma with limited evidence of minimal harms. However, the effect of screening on morbidity and mortality in groups at high familial risk has not been studied, and no data are available in average-risk populations. There is limited evidence to assess benefits or harms of surgical intervention for screen-detected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAdenocarcinomaAdultFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID31386140
PMCPMC13387050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.