Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32416142›Full record

ReviewGastroenterology2020

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review.

Harry R Aslanian, Jeffrey H Lee, Marcia Irene Canto

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07723781 (PANCATCH-Pilot), which is not on this map. Cited by 172 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
172citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT07723781 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

PANCATCH-Pilot: Structured Early Detection of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma in Swiss Primary Care - A Prospective Feasibility Study of a Case-Finding Pathway in the Canton of Zurich

TypeobservationalSponsorSaskia HendrichRan2026 to 2030Enrolled50ConditionsPancreatic Adenocarcinoma (Ductal Adenocarcinoma), Early Detection of CancerArmsStructured case-finding pathway (MRI/MRCP + PancreaSure biomarker assay)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

172 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 272 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Economic evaluations of early detection strategies for pancreatic cancer: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Diagnostic Risk Prediction Models for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Pancreatic Cancer Detection Consortium Biomarker Bakeoff: A Phase II Blinded Biomarker Validation and Panel Discovery Study.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Catching pancreatic cancer early: Are we there yet?Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2026
    Review

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Harry R AslanianYale University, New Haven, Connecticut. Electronic address: harry.aslanian@yale.edu.
Jeffrey H LeeUniversity of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Marcia Irene CantoJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USYale University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

descriptionThe purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update is to describe the indications for screening for pancreas cancer in high-risk individuals.

methodsThe evidence reviewed in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and expert opinion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determined to be at high risk, including first-degree relatives of patients with pancreas cancer with at least 2 affected genetically related relatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with genetic syndromes associated with an increased risk of pancreas cancer, including all patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, patients with CDKN2A gene mutation, and patients with 1 or more first-degree relatives with pancreas cancer with Lynch syndrome, and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM genes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing and counseling should be considered for familial pancreas cancer relatives who are eligible for surveillance. A positive germline mutation is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression and may also lead to screening for other relevant associated cancers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Participation in a registry or referral to a pancreas Center of Excellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not screen average-risk individuals for pancreas cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin at age 50 years, or 10 years younger than the initial age of familial onset. Screening should be initiated at age 40 years in CKDN2A and PRSS1 mutation carriers with hereditary pancreatitis and at age 35 years in the setting of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should be used in combination as the preferred screening modalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The target detectable pancreatic neoplasms are resectable stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and high-risk precursor neoplasms, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia and some enlarged pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Screening intervals of 12 months should be considered when there are no concerning pancreas lesions, with shortened intervals and/or the performance of EUS in 6-12 months directed towards lesions determined to be low risk (by a multidisciplinary team). EUS evaluation should be performed within 3-6 months for indeterminate lesions and within 3 months for high-risk lesions, if surgical resection is not planned. New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should lead to additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Decisions regarding therapy directed towards abnormal findings detected during screening should be made by a dedicated multidisciplinary team together with the high-risk individual and their family. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Surgical resection should be performed at high-volume centers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Clinicians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are more likely to die of non-pancreas cancer-related causes due to comorbidity and/or are not candidates for pancreas resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: The limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients before initiating a screening program.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicComorbidityDecision Making, SharedEarly Detection of CancerGastroenterologyGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingHumansMass ScreeningMedical History TakingNeoplastic Syndromes, HereditaryPancreasPancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsRegistriesRisk AssessmentCancer ScreeningPancreas Cancer

Identifiers

PMID32416142
OpenAlexW3024577410

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.