Clinical Prediction Models for Pancreatic Cancer in General and At-Risk Populations: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION:Identifying high-risk individuals using a risk prediction model could be a crucial first stage of screening pathways to improve the early detection of pancreatic cancer. A systematic review was conducted to critically evaluate the published primary literature on the development or validation of clinical risk prediction models for pancreatic cancer risk.METHODS:MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for relevant articles from the inception of each database up to November 2021. Study selection and data extraction were conducted by 2 independent reviewers. The Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was applied to assess risk of bias.RESULTS:In total, 33 studies were included, describing 38 risk prediction models. Excluding studies with an overlapping population, this study consist of 15,848,100 participants, of which 58,313 were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Eight studies externally validated their model, and 13 performed internal validation. The studies described risk prediction models for pancreatic cancer in the general population (n = 14), patients with diabetes (n = 8), and individuals with gastrointestinal (and other) symptoms (symptoms included abdominal pain, unexplained weight loss, jaundice, and change in bowel habits and indigestion; n = 11). The commonly used clinical risk factors in the model were cigarette smoking (n = 27), age (n = 25), diabetes history (n = 22), chronic pancreatitis (n = 18), and body mass index (n = 14). In the 25 studies that assessed model performance, C-statistics ranged from 0.61 to 0.98. Of the 33 studies included, 6 were rated as being at a low risk of bias based on PROBAST.DISCUSSION:Many clinical risk prediction models for pancreatic cancer had been developed for different target populations. Although low risk-of-bias studies were identified, these require external validation and implementation studies to ensure that these will benefit clinical decision making.