Skip to content
Open access

A Clinical Score to Identify Individuals at High Risk of Pancreatic Cancer in the General Population

Jul 2026 · Diagnostics · Vol 16, pp. 2390 · 0 citations · 28 references
Medicine

TL;DR

This simple, validated model effectively stratifies short-term PC risk using routine data, potentially facilitating targeted surveillance in the general population.

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Early detection of pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging due to the lack of effective screening tools. We aimed to develop a clinically applicable model to identify individuals at high risk of PC using routine health check-up data. Methods: In a 1:4 matched case–control study (111 cases and 439 controls) using data collected between 2010 and 2018, PC cases were defined as individuals diagnosed with PC within 2 years of a health check-up. A model was developed using conditional logistic regression and validated in an independent cohort of 52,043 individuals (40 PC cases; 2019–2021). Results: Five risk factors were identified: carbohydrate antigen 19-9 ≥ 39 U/mL, hemoglobin A1c ≥ 6.5%, alkaline phosphatase > 110 IU/L, weight loss ≥ 5%, and dyspepsia. A 12-point risk scoring system was constructed, with an area under the curve of 0.784 in the development and 0.841 in the validation cohort. At a threshold of ≥5, the high-risk group had a significantly higher 2-year incidence of PC than the low-risk group (2.56% vs. 0.047%; p < 0.001), a 54.76-fold risk enrichment, with a negative predictive value of 99.95% and a number-needed-to-follow of 39. Conclusions: This simple, validated model effectively stratifies short-term PC risk using routine data, potentially facilitating targeted surveillance in the general population.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Sep 2026

Predicting pancreatic cancer in high-risk individuals and in the general population: how long is the road yet?

It is emphasized that the future effectiveness of PDAC prevention lies in refined risk stratification through universal germline testing, the integration of polygenic and environmental data, and the provision of comprehensive psychosocial support to manage the emotional impact of surveillance.

D. Campa, C. Rizzato, A. Kataki et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Analysis of Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels in a Population-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Program at Hiwa Hospital, Sulaymaniyah, Iraq

Background: Prostate cancer is the third most frequently diagnosed cancer worldwide with a significant public health burden. Objective: To investigate the effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in the early detection of prostate cancer and to highlight age and body mass index as the associated risk factors i...

S. Nidhamalddin, R. A. Mohammed, B. Marouf et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Comparative performance of HCC risk scores in identifying low-risk patients with cirrhosis: A multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS The rising prevalence of cirrhosis, driven by non-viral etiologies, strains healthcare systems and necessitates personalized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance. We conducted a head-to-head comparison of the Toronto HCC risk index (THRI) and aMAP score within an etiology-diverse Western popula...

Mohamed Moussa, K. de Wit, L. Baak et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Breast Cancer Method of Detection: Screening Associated with Favorable Tumor Characteristics, Treatment, and Survival Across Age Groups.

OBJECTIVE Breast cancer method of detection (MOD) describes how a cancer is first identified: through screening or non-screening (symptomatic/incidental) presentation. We examined associations between MOD and patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival. METHODS This retrospective coh...

Babita Panigrahi, Alexandra DiTommaso, N. Ghuman et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Actionable Incidental Findings at Baseline Lung Cancer Screening: Identifying Opportunities in a Universal Healthcare System.

AIFs were common, but prevalence was relatively low for several key, potentially significant findings and standardized reporting of AIFs and program-specific guidance is required considering the downstream costs associated with systematic identification of these AIFs.

Adam Gaisinsky, Lara Gabrielle Lim, Hussain Alshimali et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.