Abstract
Screening of the general population for cancer is a matter of primary prevention reducing the burden of disease. Whilst this is successful for several cancers including breast, colon and prostate, the situation to screen and hence prevent pancreatic cancer is different. The organ is not as accessible to simple physical exam or biological samples (fecal or blood test). Neither exists a blood test such as PSA that is cost-effective. Reviewing the evidence from screening risk groups for pancreatic cancer, one must conclude that there is no rational at present to screen the general population, for a lack of appropriate tests.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The question of whether experience from pancreatic cancer surveillance programs can help us to detect pancreatic cancer in the general population does, obviously, imply that such screening will be able to identify patients at early enough stages to allow for curative surgery and, if necessary, adjuvant chemotherapy.
We therefore should first investigate the evidence from the screening programs in these risk populations for the detection of early cancer since here the risk to develop pancreatic cancer is higher. Consensus guidelines for individuals at risk (IAR) are developed by the international Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium [1]. This group of IAR is better suited compared to other risk groups such as patients with chronic [2] or autoimmune [3] pancreatitis or patients with IPMN [4] that all are at risk to develop pancreatic cancer. The ground truth being surgical pathology demonstrating high-grade dysplasia or T1a invasive cancer as a reference. Screening programs usually consist of imaging at regular intervals, mostly by using MRI, with or without the addition of biomarkers such as CA 19–9 [5].
Screening individuals at risk
The aim of the screening of IAR is the detection and diagnosis of preneoplastic lesions, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN), pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PanIN) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Several studies published by the CAPS Consortium have analyzed the prevalence of pancreatic abnormalities, preneoplastic lesions and pancreatic cancer, as well as the risk of malignant progression of IAR under surveillance [6, 7] Click or tap here to enter text. These studies show that IAR often have small cystic lesions [6] and that neoplastic progression (either HGD or pancreatic cancer) occurred in 7% with a progression rate of 1.6%/year [7]. Asymptomatic pancreatic cancers detected under surveillance were often identified in an early and resectable phase [8]. This led to a better 3- and 5-year survival in these IAR where a lesion was detected compared to symptomatic pancreatic cancer that developed outside the screening program [7, 9]. Other studies have however shown higher proportions of advance stage pancreatic cancer, including unresectable tumors, e.g. 11/28 in CAPS [9]. Surveillance thus seems to be effective in preventing death from pancreatic cancer [8], although some individuals may develop advanced cancer between the imaging intervals (depending on the risk typically between 6 and 12 months). Such cancers might perhaps be inherently more aggressive as has been shown for interval cancers for other types of tumors such as colorectal cancer [10] (Fig. 1).
Health economy
There are few data on the health economic impact of the surveillance program in IAR. Cost-effectiveness analyses are used to inform decision makers on how to prioritize between different interventions to improve health. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of different surveillance programs will support policy making on how to optimally prioritize the allocation of health care resources to improve health for patients with pancreatic cancer.
Such analysis can be used to identify cost-effective surveillance program strategies, but also to identify risk populations (IAR), for which a specific surveillance program is cost-effective. As an example, it can be used to identify the lifetime pancreatic cancer risk threshold level, at which a specific surveillance strategy is cost-effective.
At current time, however, there is a significant knowledge gap on the health economic consequences of surveillance programs in IAR, and there is a need for new comprehensive cost-effectiveness studies, where all relevant consequences from a societal perspective are included, and where these are based on large population samples with long-term and complete follow-up [11]. Surveillance seems to be cost-effective [12], although the number needed to treat for preventing one PDAC is 135, thus rather high [13]. Therefore, the issue of overtreating has been raised meaning unnecessary surgery for finally a benign lesion [14, 15].
Population-based studies
There are very few studies undertaken to screen an entire population for pancreatic cancer. Within the so-called SHIP study (Study of Health in Pomerania), 1’077 healthy individuals were subjected to whole-body MRI, and followed over a five-year period revealing no pancreatic cancer but cystic lesions (IPMN) in about 50% of those individuals [16].
Within the EPIC study, healthy individuals (405 cases and 416 matched controls) were followed up prospectively. Analyzing biological samples retrospectively, antibodies against bacteria from the oral cavity, especially Porphyromonas gingivalis could be linked to an increased risk for the development of PDAC [17]. This has not been used for screening the general population.
The Northern Sweden Health and Disease Study (NSHDS) is a prospective collection of blood samples, life-style and dietary factors from approximately 150,000 individuals, from a region in Northern Sweden. NSHDS contains pre-diagnostic blood samples from 275 future PDAC patients. Retrospective analysis of CA 19 − 9 in this cohort revealed that this marker became positive two years before PDAC diagnosis in some few patients, however, could only discriminate the future PDAC patients six month prior to overt diagnosis of the [18]. This underscores the critical role CA 19 − 9 plays as the only tumor marker for pancreatic cancer: even when using complex serum profiling, CA 19 − 9 had to be positive for determining a pancreatic cancer [19]. Moreover, data from the same cohort shows that fasting glucose levels start to increase already up to six years before the PDAC diagnosis in future patients and that this could be used as a means to find a high-risk population to enter into the surveillance programs in some settings [20]. At the same time data from this cohort also indicate that effective markers at the time of diagnosis could nevertheless be related to advance disease since these signatures disappear when moving further back in time from the diagnosis [21, 22]. From the PACYFIC register, it was concluded that the current CA19.9 cutoff was not predictive of HGD and pancreatic cancer, whereas a higher cutoff may decrease false-positive values. The role of CA19.9 monitoring should be critically appraised prior to implementation in surveillance programs and guidelines [23].
In a recent systematic review, clinical prediction models were developed to assess the risk of PDAC in the general population. The study evaluated a total of 15’848’100 individuals, of whom 58’313 developed PDAC (0.3%)24. The clinical risk factors included the usual suspects: cigarette smoking, chronic pancreatitis, and BMI, the CI running from 0.65 to 0.77 (diabetes mellitus), CI 0.75–0.89 (biomarkers and said risk factors) [24].
Newly onset diabetes mellitus (NOD) has been identified as a “red flag” for the development of PDAC [25]. While the scientific basis is sound [26, 27], the question arose as to whether it would be feasible to screen for pancreatic cancer in the general population all those who have NOD. A recent health economy analysis concluded that risk-based PAC screening in patients with NOD is likely to be cost-effective, at least in the United States if even a modest fraction (> 25%) of screen-detected patients with PAC are resectable [28]. Future studies should reassess the value of this intervention once clinical trial data become available.
As part of a metabolic syndrome, the fatty pancreas has been claimed to pave the road for pancreatic cancer as well. A recent systematic review of 2956 patients from 17 studies seem to confirm the potential association of a fatty pancreas and pancreatic cancer (6-fold higher probability of fatty pancreas among patients with pancreatic cancer). Limitations regarding the considerable statistical heterogeneity of the studies included leave this question open [29]. Furthermore, the authors themselves questioned the definition for the fatty pancreas since there are no guidelines or agreements amongst the radiologists [29].
Radiomics based on the primary lesion holds great potential for prognosis prediction. First-order entropy was significantly associated with the overall survival of PDAC and might improve the accuracy of current PDAC prognosis prediction [30].
Conclusion
Taken together, whilst it appears to be possible to identify those amongst the individuals at risk who are on the path to develop pancreatic cancer, i.e. screening risk groups such as FPC/IAR and IPMN, the current knowledge does prevent us from extending such a surveillance – both via imaging and biomarkers - to the general population. Both due to lack of evidence, resources needed, and effect on possible outcome. This is in sharp contrast to screening programs for other cancers, such as mammography (breast cancer) and PSA screening (prostate cancer) or even screening colonoscopy (colorectal cancer) of the general public.
For the time being, the aim must be to thoroughly identify potential risk factors in patients rendering individuals then eligible for admission into surveillance such as familiar/hereditary pancreatic cancer, or IPMN. If a patient is diagnosed with chronic or autoimmune pancreatitis s/he ought to stay under regular observation, including new imaging with new symptoms (e.g. pain, weight loss) due to their underlying disease and the low risk of developing pancreatic cancer, however, these cannot count for the general (healthy) population.
The current line of research is aiming in two directions. First, identification of imaging features with help of artificial intelligence consistent of early pancreatic cancer [31]. Secondly, identifying the best liquid biopsy method indicating early pancreatic cancer during its inception [32, 33]. Both these tracks are followed at present through collaborative grants from the EU.
Data availability
No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
References
Goggins M, Overbeek KA, Brand R et al (2020) Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut 69:7–17
Vujasinovic M, Dugic A, Maisonneuve P et al (2020) Risk of developing pancreatic Cancer in patients with chronic pancreatitis. J Clin Med ;9
Schneider A, Hirth M, Munch M et al (2017) Risk of Cancer in patients with autoimmune pancreatitis: a single-center experience from Germany. Digestion 95:172–180
Pozzi Mucelli RM, Moro CF, Del Chiaro M et al (2022) Branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN): are cyst volumetry and other novel imaging features able to improve malignancy prediction compared to well-established resection criteria? Eur Radiol 32:5144–5155
Del Chiaro M, Verbeke CS, Kartalis N et al (2015) Short-term results of a magnetic resonance imaging-based Swedish screening program for individuals at risk for pancreatic Cancer. JAMA Surg 150:512–518
Canto MI, Almario JA, Schulick RD et al (2018) Risk of neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Long-Term Surveillance. Gastroenterology
Canto MI, Hruban RH, Fishman EK et al (2012) Frequent detection of pancreatic lesions in asymptomatic high-risk individuals. Gastroenterology 142:796–804 quiz e14-5
Paiella S, Capurso G, Carrara S et al (2023) Outcomes of a 3-year prospective surveillance in individuals at high-risk for pancreatic cancer. Am J Gastroenterol
Overbeek KA, Goggins MG, Dbouk M et al (2022) Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and implications for successful early detection in high-risk individuals. Gastroenterology 162:772–785e4
Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M et al (2005) Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 129:34–41
Hernandez D, Wagner F, Hernandez-Villafuerte K, Schlander M (2023) Economic Burden of Pancreatic Cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Gastrointest Cancer 54:391–407
Corral JE, Das A, Bruno MJ, Wallace MB (2019) Cost-effectiveness of Pancreatic Cancer Surveillance in High-Risk Individuals: An Economic Analysis. Pancreas. ;48:526–536
Corral JE, Mareth KF, Riegert-Johnson DL et al (2019) Diagnostic yield from screening asymptomatic individuals at high risk for pancreatic Cancer: a Meta-analysis of Cohort studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 17:41–53
Klatte DCF, Wallace MB, Löhr M et al (2022) Hereditary pancreatic cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol :101783
Aslanian HR, Lee JH, Canto MI (2020) AGA clinical practice update on pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals: expert review. Gastroenterology 159:358–362
Kromrey ML, Bulow R, Hubner J et al (2018) Prospective study on the incidence, prevalence and 5-year pancreatic-related mortality of pancreatic cysts in a population-based study. Gut 67:138–145
Michaud DS, Izard J, Wilhelm-Benartzi CS et al (2013) Plasma antibodies to oral bacteria and risk of pancreatic cancer in a large European prospective cohort study. Gut 62:1764–1770
Mason J, Lundberg E, Jonsson P et al (2022) A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of pre-diagnostic blood plasma biomarkers for early detection of pancreatic Cancer. Int J Mol Sci ;23
Mellby LD, Nyberg AP, Johansen JS et al (2018) Serum biomarker signature-based Liquid Biopsy for diagnosis of early-stage pancreatic Cancer. J Clin Oncol 36:2887–2894
Jacobson S, Dahlqvist P, Johansson M et al (2021) Hyperglycemia as a risk factor in pancreatic cancer: A nested case-control study using prediagnostic blood glucose levels. Pancreatology
Borgmastars E, Lundberg E, Ohlund D et al (2021) Circulating tissue polypeptide-specific Antigen in Pre-diagnostic Pancreatic Cancer samples. Cancers (Basel) ;13
Franklin O, Jonsson P, Billing O et al (2018) Plasma Micro-RNA alterations appear late in pancreatic Cancer. Ann Surg 267:775–781
Levink IJM, Jaarsma SC, Koopmann BDM et al (2023) The additive value of CA19.9 monitoring in a pancreatic cyst surveillance program. United Eur Gastroenterol J 11:601–611
Santos R, Coleman HG, Cairnduff V, Kunzmann AT (2023) Clinical prediction models for pancreatic Cancer in General and At-Risk populations: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 118:26–40
Löhr JM (2014) Personal view: pancreatic cancer should be treated as a medical emergency. BMJ 349:g5261
Sah RP, Sharma A, Nagpal S et al (2019) Phases of metabolic and soft tissue changes in months preceding a diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 156:1742–1752
Huang BZ, Pandol SJ, Jeon CY et al (2019) New-Onset Diabetes, Longitudinal trends in metabolic markers, and risk of pancreatic Cancer in a Heterogeneous Population. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Schwartz NRM, Matrisian LM, Shrader EE et al (2021) Potential cost-effectiveness of risk-based pancreatic Cancer screening in patients with New-Onset diabetes. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 20:451–459
Lipp M, Tarjan D, Lee J et al (2023) Fatty pancreas is a risk factor for pancreatic Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of 2956 patients. Cancers (Basel) ;15
Gao Y, Cheng S, Zhu L et al (2022) A systematic review of prognosis predictive role of radiomics in pancreatic cancer: heterogeneity markers or statistical tricks? Eur Radiol 32:8443–8452
Schuurmans M, Alves N, Vendittelli P et al (2023) Artificial Intelligence in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma Imaging: a commentary on potential future applications. Gastroenterology 165:309–316
Wang K, Wang X, Pan Q, Zhao B (2023) Liquid biopsy techniques and pancreatic cancer: diagnosis, monitoring, and evaluation. Mol Cancer 22:167
Lawrence R, Watters M, Davies CR et al (2023) Circulating tumour cells for early detection of clinically relevant cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 20:487–500
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the ongoing grant support from the EU within PANCAID (101096309) and PANCAIM (101016851). The biomarker discovery research is further supported by the Signe och Olof Wallenius Stiftelse (to JML), the Swedish Cancer Society (21 1585 to JML, 22 2318, 19 0273, CAN 2011/1110, CAN 2016/634 to MS, CAN 2017/332, CAN 2017/827, and 20 1339 PjF to DÖ), The Swedish Research Council (2016–02990 and 2019 − 01690 to MS), the district of Stockholm (SLL20200116 to JML), Region Västerbotten (RV-583411, RV-549731, RV-841551, RV-930478, RV-930132, RV-99607108, RV-9960708, and VLL-837731 to MS, RV-930167, VLL- 643451, and RV-978812 to DÖ), the Sjöberg Foundation (to DÖ and MS), the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (to DÖ), the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg foundation (MMW 2020.0189 to DÖ), Finska Läkaresällskapet (to MS), the Sigrid Juselius Foundation (to MS) and Medicinska Understödsföreningen Liv och Hälsa (to MS).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Design JML, contribution all authors, first draft JML, writing the manuscript and review of the final version all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Löhr, JM., Öhlund, D., Söreskog, E. et al. Can our experience with surveillance for inherited pancreatic cancer help to identify early pancreatic cancer in the general population?. Familial Cancer (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00363-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10689-024-00363-6