Femme Harinck

International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer.

Background Screening individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer (PC) detects early, potentially curable, pancreatic neoplasia. Objective To develop consortium statements on screening, surveillance and management of high-risk individuals with an inherited predisposition to PC. Methods A 49-expert multidisciplinary international consortium met to discuss pancreatic screening and vote on statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Results There was excellent agreement that, to be successful, a screening programme should detect and treat T1N0M0 margin-negative PC and high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions (pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm). It was agreed that the following were candidates for screening: first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with PC from a familial PC kindred with at least two affected FDRs; patients with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome; and p16, BRCA2 and hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) mutation carriers with ≥1 affected FDR. Consensus was not reached for the age to initiate screening or stop surveillance. It was agreed that initial screening should include endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and/or MRI/magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography not CT or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There was no consensus on the need for EUS fine-needle aspiration to evaluate cysts. There was disagreement on optimal screening modalities and intervals for follow-up imaging. When surgery is recommended it should be performed at a high-volume centre. There was great disagreement as to which screening abnormalities were of sufficient concern to for surgery to be recommended. Conclusions Screening is recommended for high-risk individuals, but more evidence is needed, particularly for how to manage patients with detected lesions. Screening and subsequent management should take place at high-volume centres with multidisciplinary teams, preferably within research protocols.

The yield of first-time endoscopic ultrasonography in screening individuals at a high risk of developing pancreatic cancer

OBJECTIVES:Approximately 10–15% of all pancreatic cancers (PCs) may be hereditary in origin. We investigated the use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the screening of individuals at high risk for developing PC. In this paper the results of first-time screening with EUS are presented.METHODS:Those eligible for screening in this study were first-degree family members of affected individuals from familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) families, mutation carriers of PC-prone hereditary syndromes, individuals with Peutz–Jeghers syndrome, and mutation carriers of other PC-prone hereditary syndromes with clustering (≥2 cases per family) of PC. All individuals were asymptomatic and had not undergone EUS before.RESULTS:Forty-four individuals (M/F 18/26), aged 32–75 years underwent screening with EUS. Thirteen were from families with familial atypical multiple-mole melanoma (FAMMM), 21 with FPC, 3 individuals were diagnosed with hereditary pancreatitis, 2 were Peutz–Jeghers patients, 3 were BRCA1 and 2 were BRCA2 mutation carriers with familial clustering of PC, and 1 individual had a p53 mutation. Three (6.8%) patients had an asymptomatic mass lesion (12, 27, and 50 mm) in the body (n=2) or tail of the pancreas. All lesions were completely resected. Pathology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinomas with N1 disease in the two patients with the largest lesions. EUS showed branch-type intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) in seven individuals.CONCLUSIONS:Screening of individuals at a high risk for PC with EUS is feasible and safe. The incidence of clinically relevant findings at first screening is high with asymptomatic cancer in 7% and premalignant IPMN-like lesions in 16% in our series. Whether screening improves survival remains to be determined, as does the optimal screening interval with EUS.

A multicentre comparative prospective blinded analysis of EUS and MRI for screening of pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals.

Objective Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRI are promising tests to detect precursors and early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in high-risk individuals (HRIs). It is unclear which screening technique is to be preferred. We aimed to compare the efficacy of EUS and MRI in their ability to detect clinically relevant lesions in HRI. Design Multicentre prospective study. The results of 139 asymptomatic HRI (>10-fold increased risk) undergoing first-time screening by EUS and MRI are described. Clinically relevant lesions were defined as solid lesions, main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms and cysts ≥10 mm. Results were compared in a blinded, independent fashion. Results Two solid lesions (mean size 9 mm) and nine cysts ≥10 mm (mean size 17 mm) were detected in nine HRI (6%). Both solid lesions were detected by EUS only and proved to be a stage I PDAC and a multifocal pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia 2. Of the nine cysts ≥10 mm, six were detected by both imaging techniques and three were detected by MRI only. The agreement between EUS and MRI for the detection of clinically relevant lesions was 55%. Of these clinically relevant lesions detected by both techniques, there was a good agreement for location and size. Conclusions EUS and/or MRI detected clinically relevant pancreatic lesions in 6% of HRI. Both imaging techniques were complementary rather than interchangeable: contrary to EUS, MRI was found to be very sensitive for the detection of cystic lesions of any size; MRI, however, might have some important limitations with regard to the timely detection of solid lesions.

Pancreatic cancer risk in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome patients: a large cohort study and implications for surveillance

Background Although Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is known to be associated with pancreatic cancer (PC), estimates of this risk differ widely. This hampers counselling of patients and implementation of surveillance strategies. We therefore aimed to determine the PC risk in a large cohort of Dutch PJS patients. Methods PJS was defined by diagnostic criteria recommended by the WHO, a proven LKB1 mutation, or both. All patients with a presumptive diagnosis of pancreatic, ampullary or distal bile duct cancer were identified. Cases were reviewed clinically, radiologically and immunohistochemically. Cumulative PC risks were calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and relative risks by Poisson regression analysis. Results We included 144 PJS patients (49% male) from 61 families (5640 person years follow-up). Seven (5%) patients developed PC at a median age of 54 years. Four patients (3%) were diagnosed with distal bile duct (n=2) or ampullary cancer (n=2) at a median age of 55 years. The cumulative risk for PC was 26% (95% CI 4% to 47%) at age 70 years and relative risk was 76 (95% CI 36 to 160; p<0.001). The cumulative risk for pancreatico-biliary cancer was 32% (95% CI 11% to 52%) at age 70 years, with a relative risk of 96 (95% CI 53 to 174; p<0.001). Conclusions PJS patients have a highly increased risk for pancreatico-biliary cancer. Therefore, patients are eligible for surveillance within well defined research programmes to establish the benefit of such surveillance.

Routine testing for PALB2 mutations in familial pancreatic cancer families and breast cancer families with pancreatic cancer is not indicated.

PALB2-mutation carriers not only have an increased risk for breast cancer (BC) but also for pancreatic cancer (PC). Thus far, PALB2 mutations have been mainly found in PC patients from families affected by both PC and BC. As it is well known that the prevalence of gene mutations varies between different populations, we studied the prevalence of PALB2 mutations in a Dutch cohort of non-BRCA1/2 familial PC (FPC) families and in non-BRCA1/2 familial BC (FBC) families with at least one PC case. Mutation analysis included direct sequencing and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and was performed in a total of 64 patients from 56 distinct families (28 FPC families, 28 FBC families). In total, 31 patients (48%) originated from FPC families; 24 were FPC patients (77%), 6 had a personal history of BC (19%) and 1 was a suspected carrier (3.2%). The remaining 33 patients (52%) were all female BC patients of whom 31 (94%) had a family history of PC and 2 (6.1%) had a personal history of PC. In none of these 64 patients a PALB2 mutation was found. Therefore, PALB2 does not have a major causal role in familial clustering of PC and BC in non-BRCA1/2 families in the Dutch population.

Feasibility of a pancreatic cancer surveillance program from a psychological point of view

Purpose: The success of any surveillance program depends not solely on its technological aspects but also on the commitment of participants to adhere to follow-up investigations, which is influenced by the psychological impact of surveillance. This study investigates the psychological impact of participating in a pancreatic cancer surveillance program.Methods: High-risk individuals participating in an endoscopic ultrasonography-magnetic resonance imaging-based pancreatic cancer surveillance program received a questionnaire assessing experiences with endoscopic ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging, reasons to participate, psychological distress, and benefits and barriers of surveillance. High-risk individuals were individuals with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer or carriers of pancreatic cancer-prone gene mutations.Results: Sixty-nine participants (85%) completed the questionnaire. Surveillance was reported as “very to extremely uncomfortable” by 15% for magnetic resonance imaging and 14% for endoscopic ultrasonography. Most reported reason to participate was that pancreatic cancer might be detected in a curable stage. Abnormalities were detected in 27 respondents, resulting in surgical resection in one individual and a shorter follow-up interval in five individuals. Surveillance outcomes did not influence cancer worries. Overall, 29% was “often” or “almost always” concerned about developing cancer. Six respondents (9%) had clinical levels of depression and/or anxiety. According to 88% of respondents, advantages of surveillance outweighed disadvantages.Conclusions: Although endoscopic ultrasonography is more invasive than magnetic resonance imaging, endoscopic ultrasonography was not perceived as more burdensome. Despite one third of respondents worrying frequently about cancer, this was not related to the surveillance outcomes. Anxiety and depression levels were comparable with the general population norms. Advantages of participation outweighed disadvantages according to the majority of respondents. From a psychological point of view, pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals is feasible and justified.

Is early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer fiction? Surveillance of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer represents one of the most deadly human malignancies with an overall 5-year survival of less than 5%. Despite improvements in imaging techniques and surgical techniques, survival statistics have hardly improved over the past decades. To improve the dismal outlook it would be highly desirable to develop a program to detect precursor lesions or small asymptomatic early cancers at the time when the disease is still at a curable stage. Screening the general population for disease presence is not feasible at present because of the relatively low disease incidence and the lack of a noninvasive, reliable and cheap screening tool. Targeted surveillance programs, however, in individuals at high risk for developing pancreatic cancer, like mutation carriers of pancreatic cancer prone hereditary (tumor) syndromes or individuals with a strong family history of pancreatic cancer without a known underlying genetic defect, might be feasible. Careful consideration of the criteria put forward by Wilson and Jungner as published by the World Health Organization on the principles and practice of screening for disease, indicate that surveillance in this high-risk population by means of endosonography (EUS) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) represents a promising development, though experimental. It nicely points out which open questions need to be addressed. Among others, these include how to acquire a better understanding of the natural behavior and progression of precursor lesions towards invasive cancer, how to firmly establish the performance characteristics of EUS and MRI for the detection of (early) lesions in individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer, and how to determine which lesions can be safely observed with continued surveillance and which lesions justify resection.

Indication for CDKN2A-mutation analysis in familial pancreatic cancer families without melanomas

Background CDKN2A-mutation carriers run a high risk of developing melanomas and have an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer (PC). Familial PC (FPC) patients with a personal history or family history of melanomas are therefore offered CDKN2A-mutation analysis. In contrast, CDKN2A testing in FPC families without a history of melanomas is not generally recommended. The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency of CDKN2A-mutations in FPC families without melanomas. Methods Data were gathered from PC family registers. FPC families were defined as families with clustering of PC without meeting diagnostic criteria of familial cutaneous malignant melanoma (familial CMM) or other inherited cancer syndromes. Blood samples were obtained for DNA isolation from PC patients or first degree relatives and analysed for CDKN2A-mutations. Results Among 40 FPC families, DNA analyses were carried out in 28 families (70%), leading to identification of CDKN2A-mutations in six families (21%). None of the CDKN2A-mutation-positive families fulfilled the diagnostic criteria for familial CMM and in three CDKN2A families no melanomas were observed. Two CDKN2A-mutations were found; the Dutch founder mutation p16-Leiden (c.225_243del, p.Ala76fs) and the c.19_23dup, p.Ser8fs-mutation. After disclosure of the CDKN2A-mutation in one of the families, a curable melanoma was diagnosed at dermatological surveillance in a 17-year-old family member. Conclusion CDKN2A-mutation can be found in a considerable proportion of families with FPC. CDKN2A-mutation analysis should therefore be included in genetic testing in FPC families, even in the absence of reported melanomas. This strategy will enhance the recognition of individuals at risk for PC and facilitate the early detection of melanomas.

Repeated participation in pancreatic cancer surveillance by high-risk individuals imposes low psychological burden.

When assessing the feasibility of surveillance for pancreatic cancer (PC), it is important to address its psychological burden. The aim of this ongoing study is to evaluate the psychological burden of annual pancreatic surveillance for individuals at high risk to develop PC.

Surveillance in individuals at high risk of pancreatic cancer: too early to tell?

We have read with great interest the publication by Langer et al .1 Pancreatic cancer surveillance of high-risk individuals may have the potential to alter the dismal prognosis of this deadly disease. Although promising, its application is a learning experience and results of pancreatic cancer surveillance studies are eagerly awaited. Although we greatly value the efforts of Langer et al we have some comments and questions. The title of their paper suggests a prospective cohort study with a median follow-up observation period of 5 years. …