Literature DB >> 3293108

Prostate cancer: comparison of transrectal US and digital rectal examination for screening.

F Lee1, P J Littrup, S T Torp-Pedersen, C Mettlin, T A McHugh, J M Gray, G H Kumasaka, R D McLeary.   

Abstract

The authors examined 784 self-referred men over age 60 years to compare clinical usefulness of transrectal ultrasound (US) and digital rectal examination in a screening program for prostate cancer. Biopsy was performed in 77 cases, 83% (64 of 77) for abnormalities detected with transrectal US and 38% (29 of 77) because of findings at digital examination. Twenty-two cancers were detected, 20 with transrectal US and ten at digital examination. Overall detection rate for prostate cancer with transrectal US was two times higher than that with digital examination (2.6% vs 1.3%). Sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value for transrectal US and digital examination were calculated for a range of prevalences (0.028-0.1543). Sensitivity was two times higher for transrectal US than for digital examination. Transrectal US demonstrated 100% (17 of 17) of tumors with the most favorable prognosis (less than or equal to 1.5 cm in diameter) compared with 41% (seven of 17) for digital examination. The authors conclude that transrectal US is more sensitive than digital examination in the detection of prostate cancer, and they advocate broader implementation and evaluation of transrectal US as a tool for early detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3293108     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.168.2.3293108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  18 in total

1.  Computer-assisted analysis of transrectal ultrasound images.

Authors:  B L Craine; G Oldani; J R Engel; R F Whitney; D Wright; E R Craine
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Is deleting the digital rectal examination a good idea?

Authors:  M A Sutton; R P Gibbons; R J Correa
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1991-07

Review 3.  Periodic health examination, 1991 update: 3. Secondary prevention of prostate cancer. Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination.

Authors: 
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1991-09-01       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Screening for carcinoma of the prostate.

Authors:  D P Sandhu; C P Chilton; K W Munson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-06-16

5.  Screening for carcinoma of the prostate by digital rectal examination in a randomly selected population.

Authors:  K V Pedersen; P Carlsson; E Varenhorst; O Löfman; K Berglund
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-04-21

6.  Transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate.

Authors:  M K Brawer; P H Lange
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1989-10

7.  Transrectal ultrasonography and biopsy.

Authors:  D A Sarti
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1990-01

8.  Local staging of prostate carcinoma with endorectal coil MRI: correlation with whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens.

Authors:  C Bartolozzi; I Menchi; R Lencioni; S Serni; A Lapini; G Barbanti; A Bozza; A Amorosi; A Manganelli; M Carini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 9.  Physical diagnosis versus modern technology. A review.

Authors:  F T Fitzgerald
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1990-04

10.  Transrectal Ultrasound of Prostatic Carcinoma: A new way to evaluate benign and malignant conditions.

Authors:  D J Murray; P L Cooperberg; S L Goldenberg; A Toi
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  1991-06       Impact factor: 3.275

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.