Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33148677›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2021

Screening for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Are We Asking the Impossible?

Katharine E Caldwell, Alexander P Conway, Chet W Hammill

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Katharine E CaldwellDepartment of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. kecaldwell@wustl.edu hammillc@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4330-9521
Alexander P ConwayDepartment of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Chet W HammillDepartment of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri. kecaldwell@wustl.edu hammillc@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9749-0824

Funding

SURGICAL ONCOLOGY TRAINING GRANTT32CA009621 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI TIMOTHY J. EBERLEIN, William E. Gillanders · 1988 to 2026
$12.9M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009621
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States by 2020. Because of this, significant interest and research funding has been devoted to development of a screening test to identify individuals during a prolonged asymptomatic period; however, to date, no such test has been developed. We evaluated current NIH spending and clinical trials to determine the focus of research on pancreatic cancer screening as compared with other cancer subtypes. Using statistical methodology, we determined the effects of population-based pancreatic cancer screening on overall population morbidity and mortality. Population-based pancreatic cancer screening would result in significant harm to non-diseased individuals, even in cases where a near-perfect test was developed. Despite this mathematical improbability, NIH funding for pancreatic cancer demonstrates bias toward screening test development not seen in other cancer subtypes. Focusing research energy on development of pancreatic screening tests is unlikely to result in overall survival benefits. Efforts to increase the number of patients who are candidates for surgery and improving surgical outcomes would result in greater population benefit.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalBiomedical ResearchBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalColonic NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidencePancreatectomyPancreatic NeoplasmsPrognosisResearch Support as TopicRisk FactorsSurvival RateUnited States

Identifiers

PMID33148677
PMCPMC8089111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.