The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam
- PMID: 18423977
- DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.104
The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam
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.
Comment in
-
Digital rectal examination remains an important screening tool for prostate cancer.Eur Urol. 2008 Sep;54(3):483-4. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.105. Epub 2008 Apr 7. Eur Urol. 2008. PMID: 18406042 No abstract available.
-
What is the role of digital rectal examination in men undergoing serial screening of serum PSA levels?Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2009 Feb;6(2):68-9. doi: 10.1038/ncpuro1294. Epub 2009 Jan 13. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2009. PMID: 19139742
Similar articles
-
Digital rectal examination and the diagnosis of prostate cancer--a study based on 8 years and three screenings within the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam.Eur Urol. 2009 Jan;55(1):139-46. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.03.079. Epub 2008 Apr 1. Eur Urol. 2009. PMID: 18406045 Clinical Trial.
-
Screening for prostate cancer at low PSA range: the impact of digital rectal examination on tumor incidence and tumor characteristics.Prostate. 2007 Feb 1;67(2):154-61. doi: 10.1002/pros.20501. Prostate. 2007. PMID: 17044079
-
No reason for immediate repeat sextant biopsy after negative initial sextant biopsy in men with PSA level of 4.0 ng/mL or greater (ERSPC, Rotterdam).Urology. 2004 May;63(5):892-7; discussion 897-9. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.12.042. Urology. 2004. PMID: 15134973 Clinical Trial.
-
Detection of prostate cancer: the impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).Can J Urol. 2005 Feb;12 Suppl 1:2-6; discussion 92-3. Can J Urol. 2005. PMID: 15780157 Review.
-
Screening for prostate cancer in U.S. men ACPM position statement on preventive practice.Am J Prev Med. 2008 Feb;34(2):164-70. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.10.003. Am J Prev Med. 2008. PMID: 18201648 Review.
Cited by
-
Risk stratification in prostate cancer screening.Nat Rev Urol. 2013 Jan;10(1):38-48. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2012.225. Epub 2012 Dec 18. Nat Rev Urol. 2013. PMID: 23247693 Review.
-
Patients treated with radical prostatectomy with positive digital rectal examination findings in the intermediate-risk group are prone to PSA recurrence.Oncol Lett. 2016 Jun;11(6):3882-3888. doi: 10.3892/ol.2016.4485. Epub 2016 Apr 20. Oncol Lett. 2016. PMID: 27313711 Free PMC article.
-
Association of Prostate-Specific Antigen With Age, Digital Rectal Examination, and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in the Lebanese Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus. 2024 Aug 16;16(8):e66991. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66991. eCollection 2024 Aug. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39280568 Free PMC article.
-
Yearly prostate specific antigen and digital rectal examination fluctuations in a screened population.J Urol. 2009 May;181(5):2071-5; discussion 2076. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.029. Epub 2009 Mar 14. J Urol. 2009. PMID: 19286205 Free PMC article.
-
The role of biomarkers in the assessment of prostate cancer risk prior to prostate biopsy: which markers matter and how should they be used?World J Urol. 2014 Aug;32(4):871-80. doi: 10.1007/s00345-014-1317-2. Epub 2014 May 14. World J Urol. 2014. PMID: 24825472 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous