domingo, 6 de mayo de 2018

Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk individuals: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis of screen... - PubMed - NCBI

2018 Apr 10. pii: S1424-3903(18)30068-1. doi: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.04.002. [Epub ahead of print]

Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer in familial high-risk individuals: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis of screening results.

Paiella S1, Salvia R2, De Pastena M2, Pollini T2, Casetti L2, Landoni L2, Esposito A2, Marchegiani G2, Malleo G2, De Marchi G3, Scarpa A4, D'Onofrio M5, De Robertis R6, Pan TL2, Maggino L2, Andrianello S2, Secchettin E2, Bonamini D2, Melisi D7, Tuveri M2, Bassi C2.

Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:

Screening/surveillance programs for pancreatic cancer (PC) in familial high-risk individuals (FPC-HRI) have been widely reported, but their merits remain unclear. The data reported so far are heterogeneous-especially in terms of screening yield. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available data coming from screening/surveillance programs to evaluate the proportion of screening goal achievement (SGA), overall surgery and unnecessary surgery.

METHODS:

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library database from January 2000 to December 2016to identify studies reporting results of screening/surveillance programs including cohorts of FPC-HRI. The main outcome measures were weighted proportion of SGA, overall surgery, and unnecessary surgery among the FPC-HRI cohort, using a random effects model. SGA was defined as any diagnosis of resectable PC, PanIN3, or high-grade dysplasia intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (HGD-IPMN). Unnecessary surgery was defined as any other final pathology.

RESULTS:

In a meta-analysis of 16 studies reporting on 1551 FPC-HRI cases, 30 subjects (1.82%), received a diagnosis of PC, PanIN3 or HGD-IPMNs. The pooled proportion of SGA was 1.4%(95% CI 0.8-2, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). The pooled proportion of overall surgery was 6%(95% CI 4.1-7.9, p < 0.001, I2 = 60.91%). The pooled proportion of unnecessary surgery was 68.1%(95% CI 59.5-76.7, p < 0.001, I2 = 4.05%); 105 subjects (6.3%) received surgery, and the overall number of diagnoses from non-malignant specimens was 156 (1.5 lesion/subject).

CONCLUSIONS:

The weighted proportion of SGA of screening/surveillance programs published thus far is excellent. However, the probability of receiving surgery during the screening/surveillance program is non-negligible, and unnecessary surgery is a potential negative outcome.