ArticleResearch and reports in urology2025
Ten-Year Trends in Digital Rectal Exam Results and Prostate Cancer Detection: Insights from the PLCO Trial.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.