Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40910103›Full record

ArticleResearch and reports in urology2025

Ten-Year Trends in Digital Rectal Exam Results and Prostate Cancer Detection: Insights from the PLCO Trial.

Kevin Guan, Bassam Dahman, Shyh-Han Tan, Dechang Chen, Andrew J Waters, Gregory T Chesnut, Sean Q Kern, Anwar E Ahmed

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Research and reports in urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Kevin GuanDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8733-2558
Bassam DahmanDepartment of Health Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Shyh-Han TanThe Henry M Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8250-7005
Dechang ChenDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5787-3441
Andrew J WatersDepartment of Medical and Clinical Psychology, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Gregory T ChesnutCenter for Prostate Disease Research, Murtha Cancer Center Research Program, Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Sean Q KernCenter for Prostate Disease Research, Murtha Cancer Center Research Program, Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Anwar E AhmedDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8743-6007

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Digital Rectal Examination (DRE) remains an important preventive measure in primary care settings, but a single screening may produce false positives. We sought to explore the trend of abnormal DRE (suspicious and non-suspicious) findings in men with and without prostate cancer. Methods: We utilized data on 34,756 men (1,713 Black and 33,043 White) from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. Serial DRE measurements were collected over a 10-year follow-up prior to prostate cancer diagnosis. DRE results were categorized as: normal, abnormal non-suspicious, and suspicious DRE. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to evaluate the trend in suspicious DRE findings over time. Results: After adjusting for potential confounders, the interaction term of time to diagnosis and prostate cancer status was statistically significant indicating a 23.0% increase in the odds of suspicious DRE (OR=1.230, 95% CI: 1.193-1.268) and a 5.2% increase in the odds of non-suspicious DRE (OR=1.052, 95% CI: 1.033-1.072) per year closer to diagnosis. The positive predictive value of abnormal suspicious DRE was 4.74% at 10 years prior to diagnosis, 36.82% at 5 years prior to diagnosis, 60.63% at 2 years prior to diagnosis, and 90.48% at diagnosis. Older age and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) were more likely to have increased suspicious DRE findings. Conclusion: Our results suggest that incorporating serial DRE findings into screening strategies may reduce false positives and improve early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. This study demonstrates a rising probability of abnormal DRE findings in men with prostate cancer, whereas no temporal change was observed in men without prostate cancer.

Indexed as

DRE findingsprimary care physicianprostate cancer detectionprostate malignancy

Identifiers

PMID40910103
PMCPMC12405719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.