Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35475129›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2021

Does a screening digital rectal exam provide actionable clinical utility in patients with an elevated PSA and positive MRI?

Courtney M Chang, Andrew G McIntosh, Daniel D Shapiro, John W Davis, John F Ward, Justin R Gregg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Courtney M ChangMcGovern Medical School University of Texas Houston TX USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0040-9386
Andrew G McIntoshThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA.
Daniel D ShapiroThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4079-9051
John W DavisThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA.
John F WardThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston TX USA.
Justin R GreggMcGovern Medical School University of Texas Houston TX USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3852-8199
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To define the value of a digital rectal exam (DRE) in the prostate-magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) era. Prostate MRI is increasingly used in men with elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) prior to biopsy. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in men with elevated PSA undergoing MRI followed by MRI fusion with systematic biopsy and men with elevated PSA/active surveillance with negative MRI followed by biopsy. Baseline clinicopathologic characteristics and DRE findings were collected. We examined performance of a positive DRE on sensitivity and specificity of diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC). Results: A total of 339 patients had elevated PSA and positive MRI followed by MRI fusion guided with systematic biopsy. Pre-biopsy DRE was documented in 286/339 patients, who were included in further analysis. About 81.6% positive, 78.7% questionable, and 55.8% negative DRE patients had CSPC. Positive DRE had 21.8% sensitivity and 91.3% specificity for CSPC. Positive or questionable DRE had 42.1% sensitivity and 81.5% specificity. Among 148 men with non-CSPC (GG1)-targeted biopsy, 28 had systematic biopsy with CSPC. About 5/28 had positive DRE and 8/28 had positive or questionable DRE. Twenty-seven patients were included who had elevated PSA/on active surveillance with negative MRI and biopsy done within 2 years. About 77.8% had negative, 7.4% had questionable, and 14.8% men had positive DRE. About 7.4% had CSPC and all had a negative DRE. Conclusions: Our study provides limited evidence for the value of a DRE. However, it does show occasional benefit in detecting GG2 or higher disease and given the lack of cost and side effects, should still be considered.

Indexed as

active surveillanceclinically significant prostate cancerdigital rectal examelevated PSAprostatic magnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID35475129
PMCPMC8988521
OpenAlexW3159597822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.