SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies on Pancreatic Cancer Screening.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging-based diagnosis of pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies.European radiology · 2026Article
- Toward Timely Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer: Revolutionizing Early Detection Through Genomics, Artificial Intelligence, and Noninvasive Biomarkers.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Clinical Decision Support Tool for Early Pancreatic Cancer Detection in Primary Care: Simulation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPancreatic cancer (PC) is among the deadliest types of cancer globally. While early detection helps avert adverse outcomes, screening is only recommended for individuals at high risk, specifically those with familial and/or genetic predispositions. The objectives of this study are to systematically review primary studies on the cost-effectiveness of PC screening and to identify the critical factors that influence cost-effectiveness.
methodsThis systematic review was performed using PRISMA guidelines. Economic evaluation studies on PC screening were identified from searches on the SCOPUS and PubMed databases. The quality of reporting of the selected articles was assessed according to CHEERS 2022. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers conducted the title-abstract review, full-text review, and data extraction to select relevant articles. The authors' consensus was used to settle disagreements. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, measured by cost per quality-adjusted life year and cost per life year saved.
resultsNine studies were selected for the final review. Most studies demonstrated that one-time screening for PC among high-risk individuals was cost-effective compared with no screening, while others found annual screening to also be cost-effective. High-risk was generally defined as having a >5% lifetime risk of PC and included individuals with either familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) or genetic susceptibility syndromes such as Peutz-Jeghers Syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, hereditary non-polypoid colorectal cancer syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, and BRCA2 mutations. Individuals with new-onset diabetes (NOD) were also considered high-risk. Screening using mainly endoscopic ultrasound was cost-effective among FPC individuals and those with genetic syndromes. Risk-based screening was also cost-effective among patients with NOD.
conclusionScreening for PC is cost-effective among selected high-risk individuals. However, cost-effectiveness depends on epidemiological factors, cost, the diagnostic performance of screening tools, and the overall design of studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.