Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2006 May 1;66(6):625-31.
doi: 10.1002/pros.20359.

Screening for prostate cancer without digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound: results after four years in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam

Claartje Gosselaar  1 , Monique J Roobol, Stijn Roemeling, Stijn H de Vries, Ingrid van der Cruijsen-Koeter, Theo H van der Kwast, Fritz H Schröder; European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC)
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Screening for prostate cancer without digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound: results after four years in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam

Claartje Gosselaar et al. Prostate. .

Abstract

Background: Omission of DRE/TRUS as biopsy indication results in fewer unnecessary biopsies, but may increase the risk of missing potentially aggressive prostate cancers (PCs). In 1997, the biopsy indication within the ERSPC was changed from a PSA cut-off of 4.0 ng/ml and/or abnormal DRE/TRUS (group-1) to solely a PSA cut-off of 3.0 ng/ml (group-2). We estimated the effect of omitting DRE/TRUS by comparing the results of a re-screening 4 years after initial screening to the original policy.

Methods: We compared rate and characteristics of detected PCs in the second round in men initially screened in group-1 (N=5,957) or group-2 (N=8,044). Additionally, we compared the rate of interval cancers (ICs) after screening with and without DRE/TRUS.

Results: There was no significant difference in second round cancer-detection-rates (group-1, 3.0%; group-2, 2.7%), positive-predictive-values (group-1, 23.9%; group-2, 26.3%), and number of poorly-differentiated tumors (group-1, 2.6%; group-2, 3.8%). Most PCs were clinically confined to the prostate. Eleven ICs were detected in each group (0.18 and 0.14%).

Conclusions: Omitting DRE/TRUS did not result in an increased IC- or PC-detection. However, considering the natural history of PC, the 4-year follow-up may be too short to draw a definitive conclusion.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types