Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Rachel Patel Radu Reit Taylor Guffey Harry Han Shelby Hassberger Daniel Kim Lauren Morgan Elizabeth Morris.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Rachel Patel Radu Reit Taylor Guffey Harry Han Shelby Hassberger Daniel Kim Lauren Morgan Elizabeth Morris."— Presentation transcript:

1 Rachel Patel Radu Reit Taylor Guffey Harry Han Shelby Hassberger Daniel Kim Lauren Morgan Elizabeth Morris

2  Pancreatic Cancer ◦ Fourth highest cancer deaths ◦ 35,240/42,450 people died in 2009 ◦ Survival <1% after 5 years /ed_cancer_basics.html

3  Data to acquire ◦ CA19-9 Sensitivity ◦ Best current tests ◦ Future methods ◦ Demographics

4  Criteria ◦ Sensitivity/Specificity ◦ Cost ◦ Stage of Detection ◦ Invasiveness ◦ Identify Age Group

5 SensitivitySpecificityAvg Cost/Person Stage of Detection Invasiveness EUS/FNA95% 2 98% 2 $3,515T1 7 3 EUS95% 2 93% 2 $1,111T1 7 3 CA-49490% 10 94% 10 $225T DR-7090% 5*** 93% 5*** $100T1 5 2 Ultrasound90% 1 $200T2 6 1 CA19-988%85%$129T Spyglass100% 3 77% 3 $617T1 3 3 PET90% 2 81% 2 $2,000M MRI89% 2 77% 2 $2,500T CT83% 4 75% 4 $2,200T ERCP80% 9 61% 9 $1,346T MRCP77% 8 65% 8 $1,145T Campbell 1988, 2 Santo 2004, 4 Park 2009, 3 Fishman 2009, 5 Kerber 2004, 6 Berlolto 2007, 7 Gress 1999, 8 Hänninen 2005, 9 Scheiman 2001, 10 Friess, 11 Pezzilli 1995, 12 Berberat 1999, 13 Ramsay 2004, 14 Floer 2005, 15 Andersson 2004 *** specific for 3 gastrointestinal cancers

6 DR70 BiomarkerCA-494 EUS EUS/FNA (+) Confirmed Pancreatic Cancer (+) Testing Population

7  Highly sensitive ◦ DR 70: 90% Sensitive 93% Specific ◦ CA 494: 90% Sensitive 94% Specific  Affordable: ◦ $225 CA 494 ◦ $100 DR 70  DR 70 Positives ◦ 33% Prevalence DR70 BiomarkerCA-494 EUS EUS/FNA (+) Confirmed Pancreatic Cancer (+) Testing Population

8  Moderate cost ◦ $1,100  High Sensitivity ◦ 95% Sensitive ◦ 93% Specific  Images masses Helmstaedter 2008 EUS EUS/FNA (+) Confirmed Pancreatic Cancer (+) CA-494DR70 Testing Population

9  Greatest Invasiveness ◦ Biopsy  Sensitive ◦ 95% Sensitive ◦ 98% Specific  Confirms diagnosis EUS EUS/FNA (+) Confirmed Pancreatic Cancer (+) CA-494DR /110108?pageNumber=1&verify=0

10 10,000,000 EUS/FNA EUS DR70 Biomarker CA-494 9,288,780 TN 10,859 TP 1206 (402 PC) FN 699,155 FP (+) 9,396,260 TN 3,581 TP 398 FN 599,761 FP 766,771 TN 6,773 TP 356 FN 57,714 FP 56,560 TN 6,434 TP 339 FN 1,154 FP TP: 6,434 FP: 1,154 TN: 9,991,709 FN: 703 Sensitivity: 90.15% Specificity: 99.99% PPV: 84.79% NPV: 99.99%

11  9,396,260 TN  3,581 TP  398 FN  599,761 FP TN = Previous False Positives * Specificity TP = Previous True Positives * Sensitivity FP = Previous False Positives - TN FN = Previous True Positives - TP

12  91.68% subjected to blood test ◦ $325 total cost  0.6% spends >$2,000 ◦ 1 of 11 detected Stage of Elimination in Strategy Population Eliminated DR70/CA-4949,168,386 EUS767,127 EUS/FNA64,487

13 SensitivitySpecificityAvg Cost/ Person Stage of Detection Invasiveness Our Strategy 90.15%99.99%$431T13 EUS/FNA95% 2 98% 2 $3,515T13 EUS95% 2 93% 2 $1,111T13 CA-49490%94%$225T12 DR-7090% 5 93% 5 $100T12 Ultrasound90% 1 $200> T11 CA19-988%85%$129T12 Spyglass100% 3 77% 3 $617T13 PET90% 2 81% 2 $2,000M12 MRI89% 2 77% 2 $2,500T21 CT83% 4 75% 4 $2,200T21 ERCP80%61%$1,346> T23 MRCP77%65%$1,145T21 *** specific for 3 gastrointestinal cancers

14  PAM4 Marker ◦ PAM4 antibody detects for MUC1 protein in pancreas ◦ PAM4 Activity shown by imaging  4 hours after injection  up to 7 days ◦ MUC1 protein specific to cancerous organs ◦ Test in developmental stage Gold 2007,2008

15  Screening Frequency ◦ Suggested Population Screened  50+  Family history  Smoking  Obesity ◦ Additional Screening  Smoking and Obesity  Annual testing  PAM4 antibody method ◦ Decreased invasiveness ◦ Increased resolution and accuracy of detection Yeo 2009 Number of Patients (%) CharacteristicsOverall TOTAL27,828 Age at Diagnosis Mean Age68.9 <506.7% % >7051.3% National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and end results data from

16  Andersson, R., C. E. Vagianos, et al. (2004). "Preoperative staging and evaluation of resectability in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma." HPB 6(1):  Berberat, P., H. Friess, et al. (1999). "Diagnosis and Staging of Pancreatic Cancer by Positron Emission Tomography." World Journal of Surgery 23(9):  Bertolotto, M., M. D’Onofrio, et al. (2007). "Ultrasonography of the pancreas. 3. Doppler imaging." Abdominal Imaging 32(2):  Campbell, J. P. and S. R. Wilson (1988). "Pancreatic neoplasms: how useful is evaluation with US?" Radiology 167(2):  Fishman, D. S., P. R. Tarnasky, et al. (2009). "Management of pancreaticobiliary disease using a new intra-ductal endoscope: The Texas experience." World Journal of Gastroenterology 15(11):  Floer, M., V. Hlouschek, et al. (2005). "‚ÄúPancreatic lesion‚Äù outside the pancreas: Value of endoscopic ultrasound." Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 40(4):  Friess, H., M. B¸chler, et al. (1993). "CA 494†-†a new tumor marker for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer." International Journal of Cancer 53(5):  Gold, D. V., D. M. Goldenberg, et al. (2008). "A novel bispecific, trivalent antibody construct for targeting pancreatic carcinoma." Cancer Research 68(12):  Gold, D. V., Z. Karanjawala, et al. (2007). "PAM4-reactive MUC1 is a biomarker for early pancreatic adenocarcinoma." Clinical Cancer Research: An Official Journal Of The American Association For Cancer Research 13(24):

17  Gress, F. G., R. H. Hawes, et al. (1999). "Role of EUS in the preoperative staging of pancreatic cancer: a large single-center experience." Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 50(6):  H. S. Park, J. M. Lee, H. K. Choi, S. H. Hong, J. K. Han, and B. I. Choi, "Preoperative evaluation of pancreatic cancer: comparison of gadolinium-enhanced dynamic MRI with MR cholangiopancreatography versus MDCT," Journal Of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: JMRI, vol. 30, pp ,  Hänninen, E. L., J. Ricke, et al. (2005). "Magnetic Resonance Cholangiopancreatography: Image Quality, Ductal Morphology, and Value of Additional T2‐ and T1‐weighted Sequences for the Assessment of Suspected Pancreatic Cancer." Acta Radiologica 46(2):  Helmstaedter, L. and J. F. Riemann (2008). "Pancreatic cancer--EUS and early diagnosis." Langenbeck's Archives Of Surgery / Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Chirurgie 393(6):  Kerber A, T. J., Herrlinger K, Zgouras D, Caspary WF, Braden B. (2004). "The new DR-70 immunoassay detects cancer of the gastrointestinal tract: a validation study." Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 20(9):  Pezzilli, R., P. Billi, et al. (1995). "Serum CA 242 in Pancreatic Cancer. Comparison with CA 19-9 and CEA." Ital J Gastroenterol 27(6):  Ramsay, D., M. Marshall, et al. (2004). "Identification and staging of pancreatic tumours using computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasound and mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging." Australasian Radiology 48(2):  Santo, E. (2004). "Pancreatic Cancer Imaging: Which Method? " Journal Of The Pancreas 5(4):  Scheiman, J. M., R. C. Carlos, et al. (2001). "Can endoscopic ultrasound or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography replace ERCP in patients with suspected biliary disease? A prospective trial and cost analysis." The American Journal of Gastroenterology 96(10):  Yeo, T. P., R. H. Hruban, et al. (2009). "Assessment of "gene-environment" interaction in cases of familial and sporadic pancreatic cancer." Journal Of Gastrointestinal Surgery: Official Journal Of The Society For Surgery Of The Alimentary Tract 13(8):

18


Download ppt "Rachel Patel Radu Reit Taylor Guffey Harry Han Shelby Hassberger Daniel Kim Lauren Morgan Elizabeth Morris."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google