A311 EFFICACY OF PANCREATIC CANCER SCREENING IN HIGH RISK INDIVIDUALS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Pancreatic cancer (PC) is the 11th most prevalent cancer in Canada with about 6900 new cases in 2021. Due to late diagnosis, it is the 4th largest cause of cancer related mortality in Canada. Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment over the past decade, the 5-year survival remains ampersand:003C10%, making pancreatic cancer one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. However, if detected early, the 5-year survival increases to 80%. The incidence of pancreatic cancer remains low. Therefore, the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) consortium do not recommend screening everyone. Selective screening in high-risk individuals may be effective in early detection and treatment of pancreatic cancer. Aims 1. To determine the characteristics of patients undergoing PC screening at a single tertiary care center in Vancouver. 2. To determine the frequency of disease progression and outcomes in patients diagnosed with high-risk lesions during screening. Methods Retrospective chart review was performed for patients who were screened between January 1, 2005 to June 30, 2023. As per consensus from the CAPS Consortium, patients with at least 2 close relatives with PC, and those with predisposing genetic mutations screened using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were included in the study. Clinical data, such as age, tobacco use, genetic risk, endoscopic findings, and outcomes, such as disease progression, were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using Rstudio and Microsoft Excel. Results 73 patients were included, with 42 included due to pathogenic germline mutations, and 31 with familial pancreatic cancer. Most were female (52, 71.2%). Median age in the study was 54 years (range 24-74 years) at initial screening. 66 patients (90.4%) received an EUS and 7 patients (9.6%) received MRI for initial screening. At the time of initial screening. 74.6% of patients had a normal pancreas. 6 patients (8.2%) were found to have neoplastic lesions, e.g. ampulloma, neuroendocrine tumour or adenocarcinoma at initial screening and referred for surgery. In the median follow up time of 67.9 months (range 0-168.1 months), 6 patients were noted to have disease progression, 4 of which had increase in cyst size without any other worrisome features. 2 patients had progression to malignancy. 1 of those patients received chemotherapy and surgical resection and remains alive; the other patient was lost of follow up due to geographical move. Conclusions Pancreatic cancer screening in high risk individuals is effective in early detection and treatment. Given lower incidence of pancreatic cancer, we likely need additional patient enrolment to observe a significant improvement in patient outcomes. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».