ArticleBJUI compass2021
Does a screening digital rectal exam provide actionable clinical utility in patients with an elevated PSA and positive MRI?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brachytherapy monotherapy for favorable and select unfavorable intermediate risk prostate cancer.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2026Article
- Digital rectal exam vs. electronic "digitized" prostate exam.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Low Rates of Digital Rectal Exam in an Academic Health System Represent a Missed Opportunity.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Fusion MRI/Ultrasound-Guided Transperineal Biopsy: A Game Changer in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Prostate Cancer and the Rise of Focal Laser Therapies: A Narrative Review of Benefits and Limitations.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2025Review
- Prostate Cancer Patients' Perceptions Regarding the Relevance of a Digital Rectal Examination During Their Follow-Up After Radiation Therapy.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Lymphangitic Carcinomatosis Presenting as Cough: A Case of Occult Metastatic Prostate Adenocarcinoma.Case reports in oncological medicine · 2024Article
- Prostate-specific antigen density as the best predictor of low- to intermediate-risk prostate cancer: a cohort study.Translational cancer research · 2023Article
- A prostate biopsy risk calculator based on MRI: development and comparison of the Prospective Loyola University multiparametric MRI (PLUM) and Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group (PBCG) risk calculators.BJU international · 2023Article
- Predictors of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Patients with PIRADS Categories 3-5 Undergoing Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy of the Prostate.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Does a screening digital rectal exam provide actionable clinical utility in patients with an elevated PSA and positive MRI?BJUI compass · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.