Literature DB >> 1675379

Case-control study of screening for prostatic cancer by digital rectal examinations.

G D Friedman1, R A Hiatt, C P Quesenberry, J V Selby.   

Abstract

Although commonly thought to be an effective method of screening for prostatic cancer, digital rectal examinations have yet to be shown by controlled study to help prevent advanced forms of this disease. 139 men with metastatic (stage D) prostatic cancer (cases) were compared with an equal number of matched men free of this condition (controls), with respect to rectal examinations recorded in the medical records up to, on average, 23 years before the cases' initial diagnosis of prostatic cancer. Cases and controls were members of a large health maintenance organisation in northern California. In the 10 years before initial diagnosis (excluding the last three months) the average number of examinations for routine screening (2.45 vs 2.52) or to evaluate intestinal or rectal symptoms (0.44 in both) were similar in cases and controls, respectively. After adjustment for racial differences, the relative risk of metastatic prostatic cancer for men with one or more screening rectal examinations compared with men with none was 0.9 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.5-1.7. Screening by routine digital rectal examination appears to have little if any effect in preventing metastatic prostatic cancer. If there is a small benefit, it will be difficult to demonstrate by conventional epidemiological study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1675379     DOI: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)93207-p

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet        ISSN: 0140-6736            Impact factor:   79.321


  12 in total

1.  Epidemiological aspects of cancer screening in Germany.

Authors:  Nikolaus Becker
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2003-10-14       Impact factor: 4.553

2.  Primum non nocere.

Authors:  R W Swanson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1992-01-15       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 3.  Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: therapeutic and prognostic importance.

Authors:  D G Bostwick; R Montironi
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 4.064

4.  No Association Between Screening for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Reduced Cancer-Related Mortality in Patients With Cirrhosis.

Authors:  Andrew M Moon; Noel S Weiss; Lauren A Beste; Feng Su; Samuel B Ho; Ga-Young Jin; Elliott Lowy; Kristin Berry; George N Ioannou
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2018-07-05       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Immunophenotypic Characterization of Benign and Malignant Prostatic Lesions.

Authors:  R Lakhtakia; R Bharadwaj; V K Kumar; P Mandal; S K Nema
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2011-07-21

6.  Prostate cancer screening (United States).

Authors:  J W Waterbor; A J Bueschen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  Attitudes of African Americans regarding screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  S B Robinson; M Ashley; M A Haynes
Journal:  J Natl Med Assoc       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 1.798

8.  Novel diagnostic biomarkers for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Chikezie O Madu; Yi Lu
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2010-10-06       Impact factor: 4.207

9.  The dilemma of hereditary prostate cancer.

Authors:  J C Nickel
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1995-10-01       Impact factor: 8.262

10.  Population-based case-control study of PSA and DRE screening on prostate cancer mortality.

Authors:  Eric J Bergstralh; Rosebud O Roberts; Sara A Farmer; Jeffrey M Slezak; Michael M Lieber; Steven J Jacobsen
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.649

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.