Literature DB >> 18406045

Digital rectal examination and the diagnosis of prostate cancer--a study based on 8 years and three screenings within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam.

Claartje Gosselaar1, Monique J Roobol, Roderick C N van den Bergh, Tineke Wolters, Fritz H Schröder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) is a risk factor for high-grade prostate cancer (PC).
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether men with an initially suspicious DRE, a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level > or = 3.0 ng/ml, and a benign prostate biopsy are at higher risk for significant PC at rescreening than men with an initially normal DRE, and whether an adaptation of the rescreening interval is warranted for this group. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam, 2218 men underwent biopsy of the prostate (from 1993 to 2000) with a benign result at initial screening. The serum PSA was determined every 4 yr. A PSA level of > or = 3.0 ng/ml prompted a DRE and a lateralised sextant biopsy. MEASUREMENTS: Number and characteristics of PCs found at repeat screenings and as interval cancers (ICs) were compared between men with or without a suspicious DRE result at initial screening. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate if an initially suspicious DRE was a significant predictor for detecting cancer at consecutive screenings. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: After 4 yr, the total number of PCs detected in men with and without an initially suspicious DRE was, respectively, 27 (6%) versus 103 (6%) (p=0.99). After 8 yr these numbers increased, respectively, to 45 (10%) versus 167 (10%) (p=0.88). The proportion of clinically significant PCs was 2% and 3%, respectively, for the group with initially normal and abnormal DRE after 8 yr. Having a suspicious DRE result at initial screening was not a significant predictor for detecting PC after 4 yr [odds ratio (OR)=1.15, p=0.59) or 8 yr (OR=1.41, p=0.43)]. A limitation of this study is the relatively short follow-up of 8 yr.
CONCLUSIONS: During a follow-up of 8 yr after initial cancer-negative biopsy, an initially suspicious DRE did not influence the chance for detection of cancer or significant cancer at later screens. An adaptation of the rescreening interval on the basis of the initial DRE-outcome is not warranted in future population-based screening for prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18406045     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.079

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  8 in total

1.  Predictive value of digital rectal examination for prostate cancer detection is modified by obesity.

Authors:  D I Chu; C De Nunzio; L Gerber; J-A Thomas; E E Calloway; S Albisinni; C Senocak; M G McKeever; D M Moreira; A Tubaro; J W Moul; S J Freedland; L L Bañez
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 5.554

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: a controversy or fact.

Authors:  S Stavridis; S Saidi; Lj Lekovski; S Dohcev; G Spasovski
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 0.471

3.  Targeted MRI/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in men with previous prostate biopsies using a novel registration software and multiparametric MRI PI-RADS scores: first results.

Authors:  Susanne Tewes; Katja Hueper; Dagmar Hartung; Florian Imkamp; Thomas R W Herrmann; Juergen Weidemann; Stefan Renckly; Markus A Kuczyk; Frank Wacker; Inga Peters
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Yearly prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination fluctuations in a screened population.

Authors:  Donna Pauler Ankerst; Ryan Miyamoto; Prakash Vijay Nair; Brad H Pollock; Ian M Thompson; Dipen J Parekh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Robotic mechanical localization of prostate cancer correlates with magnetic resonance imaging scans.

Authors:  Tae Young Shin; Yeong Jin Kim; Sey Kiat Lim; Jung Kim; Koon Ho Rha
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 2.759

6.  Why I cannot find the prostate? Behind the subjectivity of rectal exam.

Authors:  Dmitry Koulikov; Ariel Mamber; Alon Fridmans; Wael Abu Arafeh; Ofer Z Shenfeld
Journal:  ISRN Urol       Date:  2012-02-15

7.  Contemporary outcomes in the detection of prostate cancer using transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core biopsy in Singaporean men with elevated prostate specific antigen and/or abnormal digital rectal examination.

Authors:  Alvin Lee; Sing Joo Chia
Journal:  Asian J Urol       Date:  2015-09-03

8.  Does obesity modify prostate cancer detection in a European cohort?

Authors:  Angeles Sanchis-Bonet; Nelson Morales-Palacios; Marta Barrionuevo-Gonzalez; Luis-Enrique Ortega-Polledo; Francisco-Javier Ortiz-Vico; Manuel Sanchez-Chapado
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2017-01-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.