-
Something wrong with this record ?
Comparing the Performance of Digital Rectal Examination and Prostate-specific Antigen as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
A. Matsukawa, T. Yanagisawa, K. Bekku, M. Kardoust Parizi, E. Laukhtina, J. Klemm, S. Chiujdea, K. Mori, S. Kimura, T. Fazekas, M. Miszczyk, J. Miki, T. Kimura, PI. Karakiewicz, P. Rajwa, SF. Shariat
Language English Country Netherlands
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review
- MeSH
- Early Detection of Cancer * methods MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Prostatic Neoplasms * diagnosis blood MeSH
- Digital Rectal Examination * MeSH
- Prostate-Specific Antigen * blood MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Meta-Analysis MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
- Systematic Review MeSH
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended in combination with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data to support its use as a screening/early detection test. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic value of DRE in screening for early detection of PCa. METHODS: In August 2023, we queried the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify prospective studies simultaneously investigating the diagnostic performance of DRE and PSA for PCa screening. The primary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate (CDR) of DRE. Secondary endpoints included the PPV and CDR of both PSA alone and in combination with DRE. We conducted meta-regression analysis to compare the CDR and PPV of different screening strategies. This meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023446940). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified eight studies involving 85,798 participants, of which three were randomized controlled trials and five were prospective diagnostic studies, that reported the PPV and CDR of both DRE and PSA for the same cohort. Our analysis revealed a pooled PPV of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.33) for DRE, which is similar to the PPV of PSA (0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.30; p = 0.9), with no benefit from combining DRE and PSA (PPV 0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.26; p = 0.5). However, the CDR of DRE (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02) was significantly lower than that of PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; p < 0.05) and the combination of DRE and PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.04; p < 0.05). The screening strategy combining DRE and PSA was not different to that of PSA alone in terms of CDR (p = 0.5) and PPV (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our comprehensive review and meta-analysis indicates that both as an independent test and as a supplementary measure to PSA for PCa detection, DRE exhibits a notably low diagnostic value. The collective findings from the included studies suggest that, in the absence of clinical symptoms and signs, DRE could be potentially omitted from PCa screening and early detection strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review shows that the screening performance of digital rectal examination for detection of prostate cancer is not particularly impressive, suggesting that it might not be necessary to conduct this examination routinely.
Department of Urology 2nd Faculty of Medicine Charles University Prague Czechia
Department of Urology Comprehensive Cancer Center Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria
Department of Urology Medical University of Silesia Zabrze Poland
Department of Urology Semmelweis University Budapest Hungary
Department of Urology Shariati Hospital Tehran University of Medical Science Tehran Iran
Department of Urology The Jikei University School of Medicine Tokyo Japan
Department of Urology University Medical Center Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany
Department of Urology University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas TX USA
Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research Al Ahliyya Amman University Amman Jordan
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health Sechenov University Moscow Russia
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology Vienna Austria
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc24019624
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20241024110621.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 241015s2024 ne f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.euo.2023.12.005 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)38182488
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ne
- 100 1_
- $a Matsukawa, Akihiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 245 10
- $a Comparing the Performance of Digital Rectal Examination and Prostate-specific Antigen as a Screening Test for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis / $c A. Matsukawa, T. Yanagisawa, K. Bekku, M. Kardoust Parizi, E. Laukhtina, J. Klemm, S. Chiujdea, K. Mori, S. Kimura, T. Fazekas, M. Miszczyk, J. Miki, T. Kimura, PI. Karakiewicz, P. Rajwa, SF. Shariat
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Although digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended in combination with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for detection of prostate cancer (PCa), there are limited data to support its use as a screening/early detection test. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic value of DRE in screening for early detection of PCa. METHODS: In August 2023, we queried the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify prospective studies simultaneously investigating the diagnostic performance of DRE and PSA for PCa screening. The primary endpoints were the positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate (CDR) of DRE. Secondary endpoints included the PPV and CDR of both PSA alone and in combination with DRE. We conducted meta-regression analysis to compare the CDR and PPV of different screening strategies. This meta-analysis is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023446940). KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified eight studies involving 85,798 participants, of which three were randomized controlled trials and five were prospective diagnostic studies, that reported the PPV and CDR of both DRE and PSA for the same cohort. Our analysis revealed a pooled PPV of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.13-0.33) for DRE, which is similar to the PPV of PSA (0.22, 95% CI 0.15-0.30; p = 0.9), with no benefit from combining DRE and PSA (PPV 0.19, 95% CI 0.13-0.26; p = 0.5). However, the CDR of DRE (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.02) was significantly lower than that of PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; p < 0.05) and the combination of DRE and PSA (0.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.04; p < 0.05). The screening strategy combining DRE and PSA was not different to that of PSA alone in terms of CDR (p = 0.5) and PPV (p = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Our comprehensive review and meta-analysis indicates that both as an independent test and as a supplementary measure to PSA for PCa detection, DRE exhibits a notably low diagnostic value. The collective findings from the included studies suggest that, in the absence of clinical symptoms and signs, DRE could be potentially omitted from PCa screening and early detection strategies. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our review shows that the screening performance of digital rectal examination for detection of prostate cancer is not particularly impressive, suggesting that it might not be necessary to conduct this examination routinely.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 12
- $a palpační vyšetření konečníku $7 D051517
- 650 12
- $a časná detekce nádoru $x metody $7 D055088
- 650 12
- $a prostatický specifický antigen $x krev $7 D017430
- 650 12
- $a nádory prostaty $x diagnóza $x krev $7 D011471
- 655 _2
- $a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a metaanalýza $7 D017418
- 655 _2
- $a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
- 700 1_
- $a Yanagisawa, Takafumi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Bekku, Kensuke $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Kardoust Parizi, Mehdi $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Shariati Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
- 700 1_
- $a Laukhtina, Ekaterina $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia
- 700 1_
- $a Klemm, Jakob $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
- 700 1_
- $a Chiujdea, Sever $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Spitalul Clinic Judetean Murures, University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, Mures, Romania
- 700 1_
- $a Mori, Keiichiro $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Kimura, Shoji $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Fazekas, Tamas $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
- 700 1_
- $a Miszczyk, Marcin $u Third Department of Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Gliwice, Poland
- 700 1_
- $a Miki, Jun $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Kimura, Takahiro $u Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
- 700 1_
- $a Karakiewicz, Pierre I $u Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, Canada
- 700 1_
- $a Rajwa, Pawel $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland
- 700 1_
- $a Shariat, Shahrokh F $u Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia; Hourani Center for Applied Scientific Research, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan; Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia; Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at
- 773 0_
- $w MED00205913 $t European urology oncology $x 2588-9311 $g Roč. 7, č. 4 (2024), s. 697-704
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38182488 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20241015 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20241024110616 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2202076 $s 1231597
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2024 $b 7 $c 4 $d 697-704 $e 20240104 $i 2588-9311 $m European urology oncology $n Eur Urol Oncol $x MED00205913
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20241015