Leen Naji1, Harkanwal Randhawa2, Zahra Sohani3, Brittany Dennis4, Deanna Lautenbach5, Owen Kavanagh1, Monica Bawor4, Laura Banfield6, Jason Profetto7. 1. Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 2. Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 4. St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom. 5. Profetto-Savatteri Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 6. Health Sciences Library, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 7. Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jason@profetto.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although the digital rectal examination (DRE) is commonly performed to screen for prostate cancer, there is limited data to support its use in primary care. This review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DRE in screening for prostate cancer in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) from their inception to June 2016. Six reviewers, in pairs, independently screened citations for eligibility and extracted data. Pooled estimates were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of DRE in primary care settings using an inverse-variance meta-analysis. We used QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines to assess study risk of bias and quality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 8,217 studies, of which 7 studies with 9,241 patients were included after the screening process. All patients analyzed underwent both DRE and biopsy. Pooled sensitivity of DRE performed by primary care clinicians was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.67; I2 = 98.4%) and pooled specificity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.41-0.76; I2 = 99.4%). Pooled PPV was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.52; I2 = 97.2%), and pooled NPV was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.58-0.70; I2 = 95.0%). The quality of evidence as assessed with GRADE was very low. CONCLUSION: Given the considerable lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, we recommend against routine performance of DRE to screen for prostate cancer in the primary care setting.
PURPOSE: Although the digital rectal examination (DRE) is commonly performed to screen for prostate cancer, there is limited data to support its use in primary care. This review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of DRE in screening for prostate cancer in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) from their inception to June 2016. Six reviewers, in pairs, independently screened citations for eligibility and extracted data. Pooled estimates were calculated for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of DRE in primary care settings using an inverse-variance meta-analysis. We used QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines to assess study risk of bias and quality. RESULTS: Our search yielded 8,217 studies, of which 7 studies with 9,241 patients were included after the screening process. All patients analyzed underwent both DRE and biopsy. Pooled sensitivity of DRE performed by primary care clinicians was 0.51 (95% CI, 0.36-0.67; I2 = 98.4%) and pooled specificity was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.41-0.76; I2 = 99.4%). Pooled PPV was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31-0.52; I2 = 97.2%), and pooled NPV was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.58-0.70; I2 = 95.0%). The quality of evidence as assessed with GRADE was very low. CONCLUSION: Given the considerable lack of evidence supporting its efficacy, we recommend against routine performance of DRE to screen for prostate cancer in the primary care setting.
Authors: Jonathan I Izawa; Laurence Klotz; D Robert Siemens; Wassim Kassouf; Alan So; John Jordan; Michael Chetner; Alla E Iansavichene Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Amanda Khoo; Lydia Y Liu; Julius O Nyalwidhe; O John Semmes; Danny Vesprini; Michelle R Downes; Paul C Boutros; Stanley K Liu; Thomas Kislinger Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-08-27 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Teodora Telecan; Iulia Andras; Nicolae Crisan; Lorin Giurgiu; Emanuel Darius Căta; Cosmin Caraiani; Andrei Lebovici; Bianca Boca; Zoltan Balint; Laura Diosan; Monica Lupsor-Platon Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-06-16
Authors: Jacob Fredsøe; Anne K I Rasmussen; Peter Mouritzen; Marianne T Bjerre; Peter Østergren; Mikkel Fode; Michael Borre; Karina D Sørensen Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-03-28