Access to POEMs and Essential Evidence Plus will no longer be included in CMA membership as of Dec. 1, 2023.
Clinical Question
Should we screen patients at increased risk for pancreatic cancer?
Bottom line
This guideline provides a framework for identifying who is at high enough risk to screen for pancreatic cancer, and how to screen them. It is important to remember that there are no randomized trial data and not much in the way of cohort study data to guide this framework. Take it with several large grains of salt. 5
Reference
Study design: Practice guideline
Funding: Govt+Foundation
Setting: Various (guideline)
Synopsis
The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against screening average-risk persons for pancreatic cancer, but the recommendation statement does not address screening in persons at increased risk. This consensus guideline (not associated with the USPSTF) used rounds of voting by a group of experts to try to arrive at consensus around pancreatic cancer screening in at-risk individuals, defined as: (1) anyone with a family history in at least 1 first-degree relative or 2 second-degree relatives (2) anyone with LKB1/STK11 (Peutz-Jeghers syndrome) or CDKN2A (Familial atypical multiple mole melanoma), regardless of family history (3) persons with PALB2, Lynch syndrome, ATM, or BRCA1, with at least one affected first-degree relative This guideline also recommends surveillance in persons regardless of gene mutation status who have a very strong family history, including at least 3 affected relatives on the same side of the family with at least 1 first-degree relative; 2 first-degree relatives who are first-degree relatives to each other, one of whom is first-degree relative to the person considering surveillance; or at least two affected relatives on the same side of the family, of whom at least one is first-degree relative to the patient. The latter 3 recommendations had declining levels of consensus as the number of affected family members decreased, from 97% to 93% to 88%. In the absence of data about biology, we tend to substitute anatomy (we have 10 digits, so 10 days of treatment) or astronomy (a screening test once a year), so this guideline recommends screening annually with either endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging with magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There are lots of other recommendations, but these are most relevant to a primary care audience. If a high-risk individual under surveillance develops diabetes mellitus, it shoud prompt immediate investigation.
Reviewer
Mark H. Ebell, MD, MS
Professor
University of Georgia
Athens, GA