Pancreatic Cancer Screening and Early Detection

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the leading cause of cancer-related deaths and has a dismal prognosis due to late-stage diagnosis. Early detection, improves survival, but remains a challenge due to nonspecific symptoms and lack of population-level screening tools. Current guidelines recommend surveillance in individuals with >5% lifetime risk. Imaging modalities form the cornerstone of screening and surveillance, while serum biomarkers show promise. Emerging technologies in imaging are demonstrating potential to detect subtle changes years before clinical diagnosis. Together, multidisciplinary surveillance strategies may have the potential to shift the paradigm towards early detection in high-risk groups to improve outcomes.

Key points

•
Early detection in high-risk individuals and those with precancerous lesions can substantially improve survival, addressing the poor prognosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma when diagnosed late.
•
Surveillance targets are defined as individuals with greater than 5% lifetime risk, including familial pancreatic cancer kindreds, hereditary pancreatitis, germline mutations, and precancerous lesions.
•
Imaging is central to screening, with MRI/MRCP and endoscopic ultrasound as first-line tools, complemented by serum biomarkers.
•
Emerging artificial intelligence-driven imaging analysis and liquid biopsy, integrated with traditional imaging and biomarkers, may enable earlier disease detection.

Abbreviations

AGA	American Gastroenterological Association
AI	Artificial Intelligence
BD-IPMN	Branch-duct IPMN
CAPS	International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening
CDKN2A	cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A
CP	Chronic pancreatitis
CT	Computed Tomography
EUS	Endoscopic ultrasound
FAMMM	Familial atypical multiple mole melanoma
FDR	First-degree relative
FNA	Fine-needle aspiration
FNB	Fine-needle biopsy
FPC	Familial pancreatic cancer
IPMN	Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm
MCN	Mucinous cystic neoplasm
MPD	Main pancreatic duct
NOD	New-onset diabetes
PALB2	partner and localizer of BRCA2
PDAC	Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma
PJS	Peutz-Jeghers syndrome

Introduction

Pancreatic cancer is currently the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States, and death rates have gradually increased from 5 per 100,000 in both men and women in the 1930s to 13 and 10 per 100,000 in men and women, respectively, in 2025. In 2024, there were over 66,000 new cases and 51,000 deaths reported in the United States, with global incidence exceeding half a million. Mortality continues to rise, and by 2030, pancreatic cancer is projected to become the second leading cause of cancer death after lung cancer. Only 15% to 20% of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are candidates for radical surgery, and their survival is significantly better, especially for patients with stage Ⅰ disease, with a 5 year survival rate of approximately 80%. More than 80% of patients with PDAC have advanced-stage disease at diagnosis, with a 5 year survival rate of only 11%. Median survival for patients with metastatic disease remains less than 1 year despite many phase III trials conducted since 2000, along with 5 new drug approvals. Therefore, early detection of pancreatic cancer is crucial in improving patients’ survival. However, early detection is hindered by nonspecific clinical presentation, challenges in reliably identifying precursor or early stage lesions, and the lack of validated screening tools that demonstrate survival benefit. There remains an urgent need for strategies that can identify lesions likely to progress to malignancy, optimize detection windows, and improve outcomes. This review highlights the rationale for screening individuals at elevated risk, the value of surveillance of precursor lesions, and emerging roles of artificial intelligence (AI) in strengthening pancreatic cancer screening and early detection approaches.

Pancreatic cancer screening: Who?

Although pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, it remains relatively rare, with an incidence of about 12 to 13 cases per 100,000 people and a lifetime risk of only 1% to 1.5% in the general population. Hence, in 2019, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended against screening for pancreatic cancer in asymptomatic adults with average risk. Furthermore, screening of general population is not considered cost-effective, and can lead to detection of incidental findings, which could lead to further downstream testing and patient anxiety without clear evidence of net benefit or harm. In contrast, emerging data suggest that guideline-directed surveillance of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer significantly reduces mortality by facilitating early diagnosis. The primary objective of such screening and surveillance strategies is cancer interception by identifying high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions or stage T1N0M0 pancreatic cancers. This approach would enable a paradigm shift in pancreatic cancer management, emphasizing detection and intervention at the earliest, most treatable stages to prevent progression to invasive disease.

Familial Pancreatic Cancer and Genetic Syndromes

In recent years, multiple expert guidelines, including those from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have established pancreatic cancer surveillance recommendations for individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer. Suggested surveillance population, timing, preferred imaging modalities, and screening intervals in these 3 guidelines are summarized in Table 1 . A shared consensus among these guidelines is that surveillance should be considered for individuals with an estimated lifetime risk exceeding 5%. ^,^, Individuals at elevated risk for pancreatic cancer generally fall into 2 categories: those with a known germline mutation associated with an inherited cancer syndrome, and those with familial pancreatic cancer, defined by a familial aggregation of pancreatic cancer in the absence of an identifiable hereditary cancer syndrome. ^,^,^,

Table 1

International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommendations on high-risk pancreatic cancer screening

	CAPS (2020)	AGA (2020)	ASGE (2022)
Target population	• Genetic mutation carriers (PJS, CDKN2A, BRCA1/2, PALB2, ATM, and Lynch) • FPC ≥2 affected relatives on the same side (≥1 FDR) • Hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1)	• Genetic mutation carriers (PJS, Hereditary pancreatitis, CDKN2A, BRCA1/2, PALB2, ATM, and Lynch) • ≥2 FDR with pancreatic cancer	• BRCA1/2, PALB2, PJS, FAMMM (CDKN2A), Lynch with family history, ATM heterozygotes with family history • Hereditary pancreatitis • FPC kindreds
Surveillance timing	• Age 50 or 10 y earlier than the youngest affected relative • PJS and CDKN2A: age 40 y • Hereditary pancreatitis: age 40 or 20 y after first pancreatitis • New-onset diabetes prompt screening	• Age 50 or 10 y before youngest affected relative • PJS at 35 y • CDKN2A/Hereditary pancreatitis at 40 y • New-onset diabetes warrants additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval	• BRCA1/2, PALB2, FPC, Lynch, and ATM: 50 or 10 y earlier than the youngest affected relative • FAMMM: 40 or 10 y earlier than the youngest affected relative • PJS: 35 or 10 y earlier than the youngest affected relative • Hereditary pancreatitis: 40 y
Surveillance modalities	• Preferred: MRI/MRCP and EUS • CT may be used for solid lesions or asymptomatic MPD strictures with unknown etiology • Optional CA19–9, glucose, HbA1c	• Preferred: MR I/MRCP and EUS • MRI for cystic lesions • EUS for solid lesions and FNA/FNB	• MRI/MRCP (with/without contrast), EUS, or alternating • EUS preferred for high-risk syndromes or combined screening • MRI preferred for noninvasive cases
Surveillance interval	• Annually for normal to low-risk findings • Every 3–6 mo for concerning features not warranting immediate surgery	• Annually if normal • EUS at 6–12 mo (low-risk lesion) • EUS at 3–6 mo (indeterminate lesion) • EUS at 3 mo (high-risk lesions)	• Annual screening regardless of genetic syndrome

Abbreviations: AGA, American Gastroenterological Association; ASGE, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; ATM, ataxia telangiectasia mutated; BRCA1/2, breast cancer gene 1/2; CAPS, International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium; CDKN2A, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A; FAMMM, familial atypical multiple mole melanoma; FDR, first-degree relative; FNA/FNB, find-needle aspiration/find-needle biopsy; FPC, familial pancreatic cancer; HbA1c, hemoglobin A1c; MPD, main pancreatic duct; PALB2, partner and localizer of BRCA2; PJS, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; PRSS1, serine protease 1.

Recent studies have demonstrated that pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals significantly improves clinical outcomes. Harinck and colleagues reported 90% of asymptomatic surveillance-detected adenocarcinomas being resectable and associated with an 85% 3 year survival rate, compared to only 25% resectability and a 25% 3 year survival rate among symptom-detected cases. Studies utilizing the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results dataset further support screening of high-risk individuals, showing that 31% of surveillance-detected pancreatic cancers were stage 1, compared to only 10% stage 1 cancer among those not screened. The 5 year survival rate was 50% in the surveillance group versus 9% in the nonsurveillance group. In 3 expert European centers, surgical resection of pancreatic cancer detected through surveillance was associated with zero perioperative mortality and acceptable morbidity, in contrast to reported perioperative mortality rates of 3.7% to 4.6% following pancreatectomy for cancer outside of screening contexts, emphasizing the safety of treatment in early stage cancers. ^,

While pancreatic cancer surveillance offers potential benefits, it also carries notable risks and limitations. A primary concern is overdiagnosis, which can lead to unnecessary surgeries for benign or low-grade lesions, ranging from 16% to 68.1%. ^, Despite the benefits of complete resection by surgery, there may be surgical complications causing morbidity, including pancreatic fistula, infection, and delayed gastric emptying, with long-term consequences such as diabetes and exocrine insufficiency. Additionally, surveillance may still result in late-stage PDAC detection, in about 61.5% of positive cases, undermining its goal of early intervention. A key limitation of imaging surveillance is its inability to accurately detect microscopic pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias with high-grade dysplasia, highlighting the need for adjunctive strategies such as EUS-guided tissue sampling or biomarker-based approaches. Additional concerns remain regarding procedural risks, incidental findings, financial, and psychological burdens. Nevertheless, current guidelines support pancreatic cancer screening in high-risk populations, citing a favorable risk–benefit profile, particularly when conducted within a multidisciplinary care framework.

Chronic Pancreatitis and Hereditary Pancreatitis

The 2020 international consensus guidelines, developed by a collaborative working group from major pancreatology societies, provide detailed recommendations on pancreatic cancer surveillance in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP). The guidelines highlight that routine screening is not justified for patients with sporadic CP due to insufficient pancreatic cancer prevalence and limited positive predictive value of current surveillance methods. However, individuals with hereditary pancreatitis, particularly those carrying PRSS1 gene mutation are identified as having a markedly elevated risk, up to a 87 fold increase, warranting surveillance. ^, Surveillance is recommended to begin at the age of 40 years annually and should be discontinued when patients are no longer surgical candidates.

Surveillance is most appropriately conducted in specialized pancreatic centers and should primarily utilize contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) or MRI/ magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), as early tumors may be difficult to detect on EUS due to inflammatory and fibrotic changes in the pancreas. The utility of CA19-9 as a screening biomarker in patients with CP may be limited, since its levels are often elevated in the absence of malignancy, leading to a high rate of false positives. While patients with other genetic mutations (eg, serine protease inhibitor kazal-type 1 [SPINK1], cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator [CFTR], chymotrypsin C [CTRC], carboxypeptidase A1 [CPA1], and carboxyl-ester lipase [CEL]) may exhibit moderately elevated risks, the consensus was not reached for surveillance of these groups due to insufficient evidence. The guidelines also emphasize lifestyle modifications, including smoking cessation, alcohol avoidance, a balanced diet, and regular exercise, as essential adjuncts in reducing pancreatic cancer risk in patients with CP. Often, pancreatitis may be the earliest feature of underlying pancreatic cancer ( Fig. 1 ).

A three-panel abdominal MRI of a 52-year-old female with pancreatic cancer shows an ill-defined lesion and focal duct aberrations in the pancreatic tail, where there was prior pancreatitis. — Fig. 1

Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms

Mucinous cystic neoplasm (MCN) of pancreas are mucin-producing cystic lesions characterized by the presence of ovarian-type stroma, lacking communication with the pancreatic duct. Management of MCN is guided by lesion size, high-risk imaging features, symptoms, and surgical candidacy. While the AGA and American College of Gastroenterology support surveillance for asymptomatic cysts less than 3 cm without high-risk features (eg, enhancing mural nodules, ductal dilation, or elevated CA 19–9), they advise MR imaging at 1 year and biennial imaging for up to 5 years if stable. Surveillance is not recommended for patients unfit for surgery. Surgical resection remains the standard for symptomatic or high-risk lesions despite its size ( Fig. 2 ).

Four panels including one ultrasound image and three abdominal MRI images of a 51-year-old female patient with pancreatic tail mucinous cystic neoplasm with focal high-grade dysplasia shows a large pancreatic tail cystic lesion with thin septations and internal debris, without solid enhancing mass. — Fig. 2

Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm—Concomitant and Derived Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma

The 2024 Kyoto International Guidelines for the management of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) emphasize dual carcinogenesis, namely the progression of IPMN from low-grade dysplasia to high-grade dysplasia/invasive carcinoma, and the independent development of PDAC elsewhere in the pancreas, which warrants long-term surveillance strategies in such patients. Cancer that develops within an IPMN is termed derived PDAC and those that occur in the background pancreas separate from the IPMN radiologically and pathologically are termed concomitant PDAC. In addition to main duct IPMN, even small stable side-branch IPMNs may be associated with an elevated risk of concomitant PDAC, with an estimated yearly incidence of up to 1.0%, 3-to-5 fold increased risk compared to age-matched population. ^, The incidence of pancreatic cancer in branch-duct IPMN (BD-IPMN) is 2% to 10% and in main duct IPMN is much higher, with rates varying from 6% to 45%. ^, This increased risk prompts guidelines to recommend that continued surveillance to be considered for patients with small, unchanged IPMNs to identify the early transformation of benign cysts to high-grade dysplasia or invasive carcinoma. These include features of high-risk stigmata and worrisome features. High risk stigmata includes obstructive jaundice, enhancing mural nodule greater than 5 mm, and main pancreatic duct (MPD) dilatation greater than 10 mm. Worrisome features include cyst size greater than 3 cm, enhancing mural nodule less than 5 mm, thickened or enhancing walls, MPD dilatation 5 to 9 mm, abrupt change in caliber of pancreatic duct with distal atrophy, lymphadenopathy, increase in serum CA 19-9, cyst growth rate greater than 5 mm/2 years. The surveillance approach is stratified by initial cyst size: cyst less than 2 cm may be monitored with a 6 month MRI followed by 18 month-interval MRI for 5 years; those 2 to 3 cm should be followed every 12 months after two 6 month interval scans; and cysts 3 cm or greater warrant 6 month intervals if the cysts are stable without development of worrisome features or high-risk stigmata. For patients with stable cyst less than 2 cm for over 5 years, continued surveillance may be considered for the detection of potential future concomitant or derived PDAC. The new Kyoto guidelines also highlight the need for shared decision-making for patients aged 75 years or older with less than 2 cm BD-IPMNs, recognizing that in these groups, the potential harms of ongoing surveillance may outweigh the benefits, and that decisions should be aligned with patient goals, comorbidities, surgical fitness, and willingness to undergo future intervention. These recommendations reflect a balance between cost-effectiveness, risk stratification, and long-term outcomes, and they underscore the necessity for long-term vigilance in selected individuals ( Fig. 3 ).