Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Dec;20(8):1739-1746.
doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2020.10.025. Epub 2020 Oct 9.

Surveillance of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer with EUS and MRI: A meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Surveillance of high-risk individuals for pancreatic cancer with EUS and MRI: A meta-analysis

Nina Kogekar et al. Pancreatology. 2020 Dec.

Abstract

Background/objectives: Consensus guidelines recommend surveillance of high-risk individuals (HRIs) for pancreatic cancer (PC) using endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This study aims to assess the yield of PC surveillance programs of HRIs and compare the detection of high-grade dysplasia or T1N0M0 adenocarcinoma by EUS and MRI.

Methods: The MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) databases were searched for prospective studies published up to April 11, 2019 using EUS and/or MRI to screen HRIs for PC. Baseline detection of focal pancreatic abnormalities, cystic lesions, solid lesions, high-grade dysplasia or T1N0M0 adenocarcinoma, and all pancreatic adenocarcinoma were recorded. Weighted pooled proportions of outcomes detected were compared between EUS and MRI using random effects modeling.

Results: A total of 1097 studies were reviewed and 24 were included, representing 2112 HRIs who underwent imaging. The weighted pooled proportion of focal pancreatic abnormalities detected by baseline EUS (0.34, 95% CI 0.30-0.37) was significantly higher (p = 0.006) than by MRI (0.31, 95% CI 0.28-0.33). There were no significant differences between EUS and MRI in detection of other outcomes. The overall weighted pooled proportion of patients with high-grade dysplasia or T1N0M0 adenocarcinoma detected at baseline (regardless of imaging modality) was 0.0090 (95% CI 0.0022-0.016), corresponding to a number-needed-to-screen (NNS) of 111 patients to detect one high-grade dysplasia or T1N0M0 adenocarcinoma.

Conclusions: Surveillance programs are successful in detecting high-risk precursor lesions. No differences between EUS and MRI were noted in the detection of high-grade dysplasia or T1N0M0 adenocarcinoma, supporting the use of either imaging modality.

Keywords: Early detection of cancer; Familial pancreatic carcinoma; Pancreas; Tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types