ArticleCureus2023
Evaluation of Patients Referred for Abnormal Digital Rectal Examination With Normal Prostate-Specific Antigen on Best Timed Pathway for Prostate Cancer.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does It Make Sense to Perform Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men with Normal PSA (<4 ng/mL)?Cancers · 2026Article
- Digital rectal exam vs. electronic "digitized" prostate exam.BMC urology · 2025Article
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
Introduction Currently, there is no recommendation for adjustments to the Best Timed Pathway for Prostate cancer (BTiPP) depending on whether the referral is for raised prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or malignant-feeling prostate on digital rectal examination (DRE). Therefore, all patients undergo MRI scanning. We aim to establish if patients with abnormal DRE only (without raised PSA) should have an adjusted pathway by comparing the biopsy rate and diagnostic yield after an MRI scan. Methods All BTiPP 2021 referral patient notes were reviewed. The patients were categorized into the aDRE group (abnormal DRE with normal PSA) or the rPSA group (raised PSA with or without abnormal DRE). Data and results for MRI and prostate biopsy were evaluated. Diagnostic yield was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent an MRI, who were diagnosed with biopsy-proven cancer. Results 68.5% (74/108) and 70.9% (282/398) of patients underwent upfront MRI in the aDRE and rPSA groups, respectively. Following MRI, the biopsy rate (28.4% (21/74) vs. 42.9% (121/282) (p=0.02)) and the biopsy-proven diagnostic yield (20.3% (15/74) vs. 36.9% (104/282) (p<0.01)) were both significantly lower in the aDRE group. 58% (43/74) of patients in the aDRE group had no posterior lesions on MRI. Only 6.7% (1/15) of biopsy-proven cancers in the aDRE group were solely anterior. Conclusions After MRI, the biopsy rate and diagnostic yield were significantly lower in the aDRE group compared to the rPSA group. Furthermore, a majority of patients referred for aDRE had a normal posterior prostate appearance on MRI. An adjusted pathway for patients referred for aDRE with normal PSA, with DRE by a urologist prior to MRI, should be considered as it would likely reduce unnecessary investigations, treatment, and patient anxiety. These data suggest that this would not risk missing significant cancers.
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.