Literature DB >> 18423977

The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam.

Claartje Gosselaar1, Monique J Roobol, Stijn Roemeling, Fritz H Schröder.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The value of digital rectal examination (DRE) as a screening test for prostate cancer (PC) is controversial in the current prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era.
OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) the additional value of a suspicious DRE for the detection of PC in men with an elevated PSA level in subsequent screenings and (2) the tumour characteristics of PCs detected in men with a suspicious DRE. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Within the screening study, from 1997-2006 men aged 55-75 years were invited for an every 4-yr PSA determination. A PSA level > or =3.0ng/ml prompted a DRE and a transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided, lateralized sextant biopsy. Throughout the three screenings of the ERSPC, Rotterdam, 5040 biopsy sessions were evaluated. MEASUREMENTS: We determined the positive predictive values (PPVs) of a suspicious DRE and normal DRE, which entailed, respectively, the proportion of PCs detected in men with a suspicious DRE or normal DRE divided by, respectively, all biopsied men with a suspicious DRE or normal DRE. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At initial screening, the PPV of a suspicious DRE, in conjunction with an elevated PSA level, to detect PC was 48.6% compared to 22.4% for men with a normal DRE. Both PPVs decreased in consecutive screens: respectively, 29.9% versus 17.1% (screen 2) and 21.2% versus 18.2% (screen 3). Respectively, 71.0% (p<0.001), 68.8% (p<0.001), and 85.7% (p=0.002) of all PCs with a Gleason score >7 were detected in men with a suspicious DRE at screens 1, 2, and 3. A limitation is that only biopsied men were evaluated.
CONCLUSIONS: At initial and subsequent screenings, the chance of having cancer at biopsy was higher in men with a suspicious DRE compared to men with a normal DRE (to a lesser extent in subsequent screenings), and the combination of a PSA level > or =3.0ng/ml with a suspicious DRE resulted in detecting significantly more PCs with Gleason score >7. DRE may be useful in more selective screening procedures to decrease unnecessary biopsies and overdiagnosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18423977     DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.104

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


  19 in total

1.  A 12-year follow-up of ANNA/C-TRUS image-targeted biopsies in patients suspicious for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Björn Grabski; Udo Paul; Leif Bäurle; Tillmann Loch
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-12-23       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Prostate cancer in transgender women: considerations for screening, diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Fionnuala Crowley; Meredith Mihalopoulos; Simita Gaglani; Ashutosh K Tewari; Che-Kai Tsao; Miroslav Djordjevic; Natasha Kyprianou; Rajveer S Purohit; Dara J Lundon
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2022-10-19       Impact factor: 9.075

Review 3.  Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  Monique J Roobol; Sigrid V Carlsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2012-12-18       Impact factor: 14.432

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.  What is the role of digital rectal examination in men undergoing serial screening of serum PSA levels?

Authors:  Stacy Loeb; William J Catalona
Journal:  Nat Clin Pract Urol       Date:  2009-01-13

Review 6.  The role of biomarkers in the assessment of prostate cancer risk prior to prostate biopsy: which markers matter and how should they be used?

Authors:  Marianne Schmid; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Markus Graefen; Margit Fisch; Felix K Chun; Jens Hansen
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-05-14       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Patients treated with radical prostatectomy with positive digital rectal examination findings in the intermediate-risk group are prone to PSA recurrence.

Authors:  Nobuki Furubayashi; Takahito Negishi; Shintaro Ura; Jun Mutaguchi; Kenichi Taguchi; Mototsugu Shimokawa; Motonobu Nakamura
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2016-04-20       Impact factor: 2.967

8.  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

9.  Are hypoechoic lesions on transrectal ultrasonography a marker for clinically significant prostate cancer?

Authors:  Tae Il Noh; Yoon Sun Shin; Ji Sung Shim; Jong Hyun Yoon; Jae Heon Kim; Jae Hyun Bae; Du Geon Moon; Jae Young Park
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-10-15

10.  Optimal PSA Threshold for Obtaining MRI-Fusion Biopsy in Biopsy-Naïve Patients.

Authors:  Luke L Wang; Brandon L Henslee; Peter B Sam; Chad A LaGrange; Shawna L Boyle
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2021-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.