• 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

. 2024 ; 7 (4) : 697-704. [pub] 20240104

Language English Country Netherlands

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review

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.

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

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...