TY - JOUR
T1 - Digital Rectal Examination Is Not a Useful Screening Test for Prostate Cancer
AU - Krilaviciute, Agne
AU - Becker, Nikolaus
AU - Lakes, Jale
AU - Radtke, Jan Philipp
AU - Kuczyk, Markus
AU - Peters, Inga
AU - Harke, Nina N.
AU - Debus, Jürgen
AU - Koerber, Stefan A.
AU - Herkommer, Kathleen
AU - Gschwend, Jürgen E.
AU - Meissner, Valentin H.
AU - Benner, Axel
AU - Seibold, Petra
AU - Kristiansen, Glen
AU - Hadaschik, Boris
AU - Arsov, Christian
AU - Schimmöller, Lars
AU - Giesel, Frederik Lars
AU - Antoch, Gerald
AU - Makowski, Marcus
AU - Wacker, Frank
AU - Schlemmer, Heinz Peter
AU - Kaaks, Rudolf
AU - Albers, Peter
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/12/1
Y1 - 2023/12/1
N2 - BACKGROUND: Annual digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended as a stand-alone screening test for prostate cancer (PCa) in Germany for 45+ yr olds. DRE diagnostic performance in men as young as 45 yr old has not been proved by a screening trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine DRE diagnostic performance in a screening trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis was conducted within the multicentric, randomized PROBASE trial, which enrolled >46 000 men at age 45 to test risk-adapted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for PCa. INTERVENTION: (1) DRE was analyzed as a one-time, stand-alone screening offer at age 45 in 6537 men in one arm of the trial and (2) PCa detection by DRE was evaluated at the time of PSA-screen-driven biopsies (N = 578). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: (1) True-/false-positive detection rates of DRE as compared with PSA screening and (2) DRE outcome at the time of a prostate biopsy were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: (1) A prospective analysis of 57 men with suspicious DRE at age 45 revealed three PCa. Detection rate by DRE was 0.05% (three of 6537) as compared with a four-fold higher rate by PSA screening (48 of 23 301, 0.21%). The true-positive detection rate by DRE relative to screening by PSA was 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.07-0.72]) and the false-positive detection rate by DRE was 2.2 (95% CI = [1.50-3.17]). (2) Among PSA-screen-detected PCa cases, 86% had unsuspicious DRE (sensitivity relative to PSA was 14%), with the majority of these tumors (86%) located in the potentially accessible zones of the prostate as seen by magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of stand-alone DRE to screen for PCa is poor. DRE should not be recommended as a PCa screening test in young men. Furthermore, DRE does not improve the detection of PSA-screen-detected PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our report demonstrated the poor diagnostic performance of digital rectal examination in the screening for prostate cancer in young men.
AB - BACKGROUND: Annual digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended as a stand-alone screening test for prostate cancer (PCa) in Germany for 45+ yr olds. DRE diagnostic performance in men as young as 45 yr old has not been proved by a screening trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine DRE diagnostic performance in a screening trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis was conducted within the multicentric, randomized PROBASE trial, which enrolled >46 000 men at age 45 to test risk-adapted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for PCa. INTERVENTION: (1) DRE was analyzed as a one-time, stand-alone screening offer at age 45 in 6537 men in one arm of the trial and (2) PCa detection by DRE was evaluated at the time of PSA-screen-driven biopsies (N = 578). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: (1) True-/false-positive detection rates of DRE as compared with PSA screening and (2) DRE outcome at the time of a prostate biopsy were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: (1) A prospective analysis of 57 men with suspicious DRE at age 45 revealed three PCa. Detection rate by DRE was 0.05% (three of 6537) as compared with a four-fold higher rate by PSA screening (48 of 23 301, 0.21%). The true-positive detection rate by DRE relative to screening by PSA was 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.07-0.72]) and the false-positive detection rate by DRE was 2.2 (95% CI = [1.50-3.17]). (2) Among PSA-screen-detected PCa cases, 86% had unsuspicious DRE (sensitivity relative to PSA was 14%), with the majority of these tumors (86%) located in the potentially accessible zones of the prostate as seen by magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of stand-alone DRE to screen for PCa is poor. DRE should not be recommended as a PCa screening test in young men. Furthermore, DRE does not improve the detection of PSA-screen-detected PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our report demonstrated the poor diagnostic performance of digital rectal examination in the screening for prostate cancer in young men.
KW - Digital rectal examination
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Screening
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85178648968
U2 - 10.1016/j.euo.2023.09.008
DO - 10.1016/j.euo.2023.09.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 37806841
AN - SCOPUS:85178648968
SN - 2588-9311
VL - 6
SP - 566
EP - 573
JO - European urology oncology
JF - European urology oncology
IS - 6
ER -
