By: Timothy Liu
Peer Reviewed
Pancreatic Cancer
Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States, and while professional society guidelines for high-risk surveillance exist, they remain without the federal endorsement needed to make them actionable.1 More than 80% of PDAC cases are diagnosed at a stage where surgical resection is no longer possible, yielding a 5-year survival rate as low as 2%.2,3 In contrast, patients diagnosed earlier at Stage I have a 5-year survival rate as high as 83%, though estimates vary across datasets, ranging from roughly 39% to 83%.4 The survival benefit of early PDAC detection is both obvious and enormous.
Yet, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) only provides pancreatic cancer screening a Grade D, defined as actively recommending against it in asymptomatic adults [5]. For most of the adult population, this claim is logical. But to apply this recommendation to all asymptomatic patients, including those with known risk factors that drastically increase their likelihood of developing PDAC, creates guidelines that discourage clinically appropriate surveillance conversations and restricts insurance services, including Medicare reimbursement. At minimum, hereditary and familial high-risk individuals deserve a formal recommendation grade. While the USPSTF currently excludes them from its Grade D recommendation, it assigns no formal grade in their place. This vacuum discourages the individualized clinical conversations these patients need, even though the survival evidence needed to justify a Grade C already exists. Adults with new-onset diabetes present a different case, discussed below, where that evidence is still being generated.
What Does a USPSTF Grade D Actually Mean?
The USPSTF assigns letter grades based on the certainty and magnitude of benefit a screening intervention provides. Grade A and B recommendations ensure insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act [5]. Grade C does not mandate coverage, but formally endorses the clinician-patient discussion around whether the service is appropriate for the individual. Grade D is viewed much differently, implying harms outweigh any benefits and actively discouraging the service. Clinicians who might otherwise discuss surveillance options with a high-risk patient may hesitate, knowing the USPSTF has formally recommended against it.
The Prostate Cancer Precedent
The trajectory of prostate cancer screening offers the clearest parallel. In 2012, the USPSTF issued a grade D recommendation against PSA-based screening in all men, citing concerns about overdiagnosis and treatment-related harm. However, long-term follow-up from the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer with over 150,000 men demonstrated significant reductions in prostate cancer mortality at 13 years.6 These astounding results, combined with a cultural shift toward active surveillance for low-risk disease, prompted the USPSTF to upgrade prostate screening to Grade C in men 55-69 in 2018.7 This story shows that a Grade D is not a permanent verdict. Rather, it is a reflection of the evidence and cultural beliefs at the time.
Who Should be Considered High-Risk?
Two populations warrant high-risk consideration. The first includes individuals with germline mutations (e.g., BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, ATM) or those with a strong family history of PDAC. The International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium already recommends annual surveillance for these individuals using MRI/MRCP or endoscopic ultrasound.8 European high-risk surveillance programs (patients with hereditary or familial risk for PDAC) have demonstrated a 5-year survival of 73.3% in surveilled patients compared to 9% in the general diagnosed population, with median overall survival of 9.8 versus 1.5 years.9
The second group includes adults with new-onset diabetes, a population in which risk is real but heterogeneous. Specifically, AGA guidance describes an 8-fold increased PDAC risk in those with new-onset diabetes co-occurring with smoking or unintentional weight loss, and standardized incidence ratios vary substantially by race/ethnicity, from 6.4 in non-Hispanic white patients to 2.4-3.0 in other groups.10 The mechanism behind this relationship has been proposed as paraneoplastic, where an occult tumor secretes diabetogenic factors.11 A prospective study of nearly 19,000 adults with new-onset diabetes confirmed 3-year PDAC incidence of 0.62%, meaning the majority of this population will never develop pancreatic cancer. 12 Risk-stratification tools including the Enriching New-Onset Diabetes for Pancreatic Cancer (ENDPAC) score stratify this population into very high-risk (3-year PDAC incidence >3.6%), intermediate-risk (1.6%), and very-low-risk (<0.1%) tiers, but even the highest-risk tier still carries a low absolute predictive value, leaving accurate identification of who benefits from imaging within this population an unresolved question.13 Resolving it, not expanding screening, is the immediate priority.
Which Imaging Modality to use?
With the continued improvement in imaging technology, first-line surveillance should be performed with MRI/MRCP. MRI/MRCP require no ionizing radiation, characterize the pancreatic parenchyma well, and unlike EUS, do not depend on specialized availability.14 Additionally, annual imaging is supported by CAPS Consortium guidance for hereditary high-risk individuals.8 For the new-onset diabetes population, no surveillance interval is yet established. However, the ongoing Early Detection Initiative trial is testing whether ENDPAC-guided imaging in this group can detect earlier-stage disease, and its results should determine future imaging protocol.12
Next Steps
For hereditary and familial high-risk individuals, the survival data is compelling, but observational, and not yet enough for a Grade B recommendation. However, Grade C does not require certainty. It requires that the available evidence be promising enough to warrant clinical conversations, and here it clearly is. This case is reinforced by promising treatments in the field. In the phase 3 RASolute 302 trial, daraxonrasib, a RAS(ON) inhibitor, demonstrated nearly twice the median overall survival versus chemotherapy (13.2 vs 6.7 months; HR 0.40).15 As therapies for advanced PDAC improve, the benefit of catching disease at an earlier stage continues to grow, strengthening the case for surveillance in this population. The USPSTF has already excluded hereditary and familial patients from its Grade D without assigning any formal grade in its place, a vacuum that a Grade C would close, not reverse.
For adults with new-onset diabetes, the more immediate need is not a grade change, but institutional support for the Early Detection Initiative trial, whose results will determine whether the USPSTF’s current, deliberate inclusion of this population in the general recommendation should be revisited. In both cases, clinicians seeing high-risk patients today have an opportunity that policy has not yet formalized, and in one of the deadliest cancers we know, that conversation started now may be the most important one a patient ever has.
Timothy Liu is a Class of 2027 medical student at NYU Grossman School of Medicine
Peer Reviewed by Michael Tanner, MD Executive Editor Clinical Correlations
Image Courtesy of Scientific Animations Inc., CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
References:
1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70(1):7-30. doi:10.3322/caac.21590
2. Kleeff J, Korc M, Apte M, et al. Pancreatic cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2(1):16022. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.22
3. Ilic M, Ilic I. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(44):9694-9705. doi:10.3748/wjg.v22.i44.9694
4. Blackford AL, Canto MI, Klein AP, Hruban RH, Goggins M. Recent trends in the incidence and survival of stage 1A pancreatic cancer: A surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(11):1162-1169. doi:10.1093/jnci/djaa004
5. How the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Grades Its Recommendations. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012. Accessed May 27, 2026. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115122/
6. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2014;384(9959):2027-2035. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0
7. US Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319(18):1901-1913. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.3710
8. Goggins M, Overbeek KA, Brand R, et al. Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium. Gut. 2020;69(1):7-17. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319352
9. Dbouk M, Katona BW, Brand RE, et al. The multicenter Cancer of Pancreas Screening study: Impact on stage and survival. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40(28):3257-3266. doi:10.1200/JCO.22.00298
10. Aslanian HR, Lee JH, Canto MI. AGA clinical practice update on pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals: Expert review. Gastroenterology. 2020;159(1):358-362. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.03.088
11. Hee NKY, Lim QH, Khunti K, et al. Secondary causes of diabetes: a crossroad of endocrinology and oncology. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2026;14(5):422-436. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(26)00027-6
12. Chari ST, Wu B, Lopez C, et al. Risk of pancreatic cancer in glycemically defined new-onset diabetes: A prospective cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2026;170(1):106-117. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.06.025
13. Sharma A, Kandlakunta H, Nagpal SJS, et al. Model to determine risk of pancreatic cancer in patients with new-onset diabetes. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(3):730-739.e3.
14. Overbeek KA, Levink I, Konings I. Long-term yield of pancreatic cancersurveillance in high-risk individuals. Gut. 2022;71(6):1152-1160.
15. O’Reilly EM, Wainberg ZA, Hendifar AE, et al. Daraxonrasib or chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2026;(NEJMoa2605555). doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2605555