Search

Objective: This study aimed to assess psychological functioning, quality of life, and regret about screening after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and subsequent colonoscopy, and to evaluate changes over time., Methods: This is a prospective cohort study. Individuals aged 55 to 75 with a positive FIT that were referred for colonoscopy between July 2017 and November 2018, were invited to complete questionnaires related to psychological distress and health-related quality of life at three predefined time points: before colonoscopy, after histopathology result notification, and after 6 months. Four questionnaires were used: the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the six-item Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), the Decision Regret Scale (DRS), and the 36-item Short-Form (SF-36)., Results: A total of 1066 participants out of 2151 eligible individuals were included. Patients with cancer showed a significant increase in psychological dysfunction (P = .01) and cancer worry (P = .008) after colonoscopy result notification, and a decline to pre-colonoscopy measurements after 6 months. In the no-cancer groups, psychological dysfunction and cancer worry significantly decreased over time (P < .05) but there was no ongoing decline. After 6 months, 17% of participants with no cancer experienced high level of cancer worry (CWS ≥ 10). Yet, only 5% reported high level of regret about screening participation (DRS > 25). A good global quality of life was reported in participants with no cancer., Conclusion: Some psychological distress remains up to 6 months after colonoscopy in participants who tested false-positive in the Dutch bowel cancer screening program., (© 2020 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Aim: The International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium met in 2018 to update its consensus recommendations for the management of individuals with increased risk of pancreatic cancer based on family history or germline mutation status (high-risk individuals)., Methods: A modified Delphi approach was employed to reach consensus among a multidisciplinary group of experts who voted on consensus statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed., Results: Consensus was reached on 55 statements. The main goals of surveillance (to identify high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions and T1N0M0 pancreatic cancer) remained unchanged. Experts agreed that for those with familial risk, surveillance should start no earlier than age 50 or 10 years earlier than the youngest relative with pancreatic cancer, but were split on whether to start at age 50 or 55. Germline ATM mutation carriers with one affected first-degree relative are now considered eligible for surveillance. Experts agreed that preferred surveillance tests are endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but no consensus was reached on how to alternate these modalities. Annual surveillance is recommended in the absence of concerning lesions. Main areas of disagreement included if and how surveillance should be performed for hereditary pancreatitis, and the management of indeterminate lesions., Conclusions: Pancreatic surveillance is recommended for selected high-risk individuals to detect early pancreatic cancer and its high-grade precursors, but should be performed in a research setting by multidisciplinary teams in centres with appropriate expertise. Until more evidence supporting these recommendations is available, the benefits, risks and costs of surveillance of pancreatic surveillance need additional evaluation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors disclose the following: JEvH received research funding from Abbott and Cook Medical; she is a consultant to Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, and Medtronics. DLC is a consultant to Tramedico. MB received research funding from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Pentax Medical, 3M; he is a consultant to Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Pentax Medical, Mylan, MediRisk, and Medicom. PF is a consultant to Olympus, Cook Medical, Ethicon Endosurgery and received research funding from Boston Scientific. RB has received research funding from Immunovia and Freenome. MIC received research funding from Pentax C2 Cryoballoon and Endogastric Solutions. DS received research funding from Immunovia, Sanofi and Tempus; she is on the Scientific Advisory Board for Nybo Therapeutics, Interpace and Tyme., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: MRI surveillance in a cohort of CDKN2A-p16-Leiden mutation carriers with a 20% lifetime risk of PDAC led to increased resection rates and improved survival. Patients with screen-detected PDAC were evaluated for main pancreatic duct (MPD) abnormalities in this retrospective review., Methods: Since 2000 annual MRI and optional EUS was performed in mutation carriers. Data of patients with screen-detected PDAC was collected on gender, age at diagnosis, site of tumor, size, outcome of surgery, pathology findings and survival. All MRIs were re-evaluated for MPD abnormalities., Results: 23 PDAC were detected in 22 (10%) of 217 mutation carriers, 10 (45%) males and 12 (55%) females. The mean age at diagnosis was 59.8 years (range 39.2-74.3 years). Revision of the MRI/MRCP revealed a lesion and dilatation of the MPD in 8 of the 22 patients. In 5 of 7 patients with PDAC detected during follow-up, the previous MRI showed MPD dilatation without evidence of tumor. The mean size of PDAC was 12.3 mm (range 5-19 mm). All tumors were resectable., Conclusion: MPD dilation is common in patients with screen-detected PDAC. Abnormalities on MRI during surveillance of high-risk individuals requires intense follow-up or prompt treatment, as early treatment results in a better prognosis., (Copyright © 2019 International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)