Literature DB >> 18409186

The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer.

C Gosselaar1, R Kranse, M J Roobol, S Roemeling, F H Schröder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To analyze to what extent the percentage of suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) findings vary between examiners and to what extent the percentage of prostate cancers (PCs) detected in men with these suspicious findings varies between examiners.
METHODS: In the first screening round of the European Randomized study of Screening for PC (ERSPC) Rotterdam, 7,280 men underwent a PSA-determination and DRE of whom 2,102 underwent prostate biopsy (biopsy indication PSA > or = 4.0 ng/ml and/or suspicious DRE and/or TRUS). Descriptive statistics of DRE-outcome per PSA-range were used to determine the observer variability of six examiners. Because this analysis did not correct properly for other predictors of a suspicious DRE (PSA-level, biopsy indication, TRUS-outcome, prostate volume and age), a logistic regression analysis controlling for these explanatory variables was performed as well.
RESULTS: In 2,102 men biopsied, 443 PCs were detected (PPV = 21%). For all PSA levels the percentage suspicious DRE varied between examiners from 4% to 28% and percentage PC detected in men with a suspicious DRE varied from 18% to 36%. Logistic regression analysis showed that three of six examiners considered DRE significantly more often abnormal than others (ORs 3.48, 2.80, 2.47, P < 0.001). For all examiners the odds to have PC was statistically significantly higher in case of a suspicious DRE (ORs 2.21-5.96, P < 0.05). This increased chance to find PC was not significantly observer-dependent.
CONCLUSIONS: Three of six examiners considered DRE significantly more often suspicious than the others. However, under equal circumstances a suspicious DRE executed by each examiner increased the chance of the presence of PC similarly.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18409186     DOI: 10.1002/pros.20759

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prostate        ISSN: 0270-4137            Impact factor:   4.104


  18 in total

Review 1.  Biomarker research in prostate cancer--towards utility, not futility.

Authors:  Sheng Fei Oon; Stephen R Pennington; John M Fitzpatrick; R William G Watson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 2.  Artificial neural networks and prostate cancer--tools for diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Xinhai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  High-risk prostate cancer-classification and therapy.

Authors:  Albert J Chang; Karen A Autio; Mack Roach; Howard I Scher
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 66.675

4.  Artificial intelligence is a promising prospect for the detection of prostate cancer extracapsular extension with mpMRI: a two-center comparative study.

Authors:  Ying Hou; Yi-Hong Zhang; Jie Bao; Mei-Ling Bao; Guang Yang; Hai-Bin Shi; Yang Song; Yu-Dong Zhang
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 9.236

5.  [TNM-Classification of localized prostate cancer : The clinical T-category does not correspond to the required demands].

Authors:  J Herden; A Heidenreich; L Weißbach
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Age-specific PCA3 score reference values for diagnosis of prostate cancer.

Authors:  Tobias Klatte; Matthias Waldert; Michela de Martino; Georg Schatzl; Christine Mannhalter; Mesut Remzi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Is clinical stage T2c prostate cancer an intermediate- or high-risk disease?

Authors:  Zachary Klaassen; Abhay A Singh; Lauren E Howard; Zhaoyong Feng; Bruce Trock; Martha K Terris; William J Aronson; Matthew R Cooperberg; Christopher L Amling; Christopher J Kane; Alan Partin; Misop Han; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Does an asymmetric lobe in digital rectal examination include any risk for prostate cancer? results of 1495 biopsies.

Authors:  Ömer Yilmaz; Özgür Kurul; Ferhat Ates; Hasan Soydan; Zeki Aktas
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

9.  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

10.  Nomogram to predict prostate cancer diagnosis on primary transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in a contemporary series.

Authors:  Christopher J DiBlasio; Ithaar H Derweesh; Michael M Maddox; Reza Mehrazin; Changhong Yu; John B Malcolm; Michael A Aleman; Anthony L Patterson; Robert W Wake; Michael W Kattan
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2012-12-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.