Literature DB >> 15922431

Digital rectal examination is barrier to population-based prostate cancer screening.

Harris M Nagler1, Eric W Gerber, Peter Homel, Joseph R Wagner, Jennifer Norton, Steven Lebovitch, John L Phillips.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether use of the digital rectal examination (DRE) results in decreased participation in prostate cancer (PCa) screening, which, in turn, would result in lower detection. Population-based PCa screening includes prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurement with or without a DRE. PSA and DRE screening provide greater sensitivity than PSA alone; however, the increased participation rate resulting from PSA-alone screening may result in a greater detection rate.
METHODS: We performed a survey of 13,580 healthy men undergoing PSA-only population-based screening. In addition to the basic demographic information, the survey asked whether the participant would still be willing to participate in the screening if it included a DRE. We modeled the willingness to participate to assess the effect of PSA screening versus PSA and DRE screening on the basis of previously published data and our results.
RESULTS: The results of our study indicated that only 78% of men would participate in screening that included both DRE and PSA. Thus, 7800 men of a theoretical population of 10,000 would participate in a screening that included both DRE and PSA. The positive screen rate (PSA > or = 4.0 ng/mL and/or abnormal DRE) would then have been 2013, with 472 PCa cases and 1540 negative biopsies. In the PSA-alone arm, all 10,000 men would have agreed to participate, and the positive screen rate (PSA > or = 4.0 ng/mL) would have been 1480, with 499 PCa cases and 980 negative biopsies. The PSA-alone arm would thus have detected 27 more cancers and performed 560 fewer negative biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have demonstrated that DRE is a significant barrier to participation in PCa screening. PSA plus DRE-based programs result in fewer cases of PCa detected, with a significant increase in negative biopsies. We, therefore, suggest that future mass screening efforts include only PSA determination and omit the DRE.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15922431     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2004.12.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  7 in total

1.  Knowledge, attitudes, and practices towards prostate cancer screening amongst men living in the southern Italian peninsula: the Prevention and Research in Oncology (PRO) non-profit Foundation experience.

Authors:  Vincenzo Mirone; Ciro Imbimbo; Davide Arcaniolo; Marco Franco; Roberto La Rocca; Luca Venturino; Lorenzo Spirito; Massimiliano Creta; Paolo Verze
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Do patients undergo prostate examination while having a colonoscopy?

Authors:  Tess Hammett; Lawrence C Hookey; Jun Kawakami
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  The impact of educational sessions provided on prostate cancer, and its screening tests on the knowledge level, and participation behavior of the individuals in questionnaire surveys.

Authors:  Cantürk Çapık
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2014-03

Review 4.  [Differential therapy of prostate cancer].

Authors:  T Jäger; H Rübben; C Börgermann
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 0.743

5.  A Survey of the Knowledge and Beliefs of Retired Men about Prostate Cancer Screening Based on Health Belief Model.

Authors:  Fariba Ghodsbin; Maryam Zare; Iran Jahanbin; Ali Ariafar; Sareh Keshavarzi
Journal:  Int J Community Based Nurs Midwifery       Date:  2014-10

Review 6.  Rethinking prostate cancer screening: could MRI be an alternative screening test?

Authors:  David Eldred-Evans; Henry Tam; Heminder Sokhi; Anwar R Padhani; Mathias Winkler; Hashim U Ahmed
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 14.432

7.  Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mohammad Aladwani; Artitaya Lophatananon; William Ollier; Kenneth Muir
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-07-19       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.