ArticleThe Prostate2026
In the Era of mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT: Does Digital Rectal Examination Still Matter?
Article in The Prostate, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the increasing integration of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT into the diagnostic and staging algorithms of prostate cancer (PCa), digital rectal examination (DRE)-a once foundational and cost-effective physical examination-has gradually become marginalized in daily clinical practice. However, the continued relevance of DRE in the modern imaging era remains uncertain. This study aimed to reassess the diagnostic value of DRE in the context of contemporary imaging tools, particularly mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT.
methodsThis retrospective analysis included 164 patients diagnosed with prostate adenocarcinoma via transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. All patients underwent DRE before biopsy, and 151 received mpMRI while 62 underwent PSMA PET/CT. mpMRI findings were reported using PI-RADS v2.1, and SUVmax values were recorded from PET/CT reports. Radical prostatectomy was performed in 156 patients. The relationship between DRE findings and imaging parameters, biopsy results, and pathological staging was analyzed using multivariate statistics and ROC curve analyses.
resultsDRE findings were benign in 100 patients and suspicious for malignancy in 64. Suspicious DRE was significantly associated with higher PI-RADS scores, greater lesion size, elevated SUVmax, and clinically significant PCa (p < 0.001 for all). Each one-point increase in PI-RADS was associated with a twofold rise in the likelihood of a positive DRE. ROC analyses identified a 13.5 mm lesion size and an SUVmax of 15.1 as predictive thresholds for DRE positivity. Suspicious DRE also correlated with advanced pathological stage (≥ pT3) (p < 0.001).
conclusionDespite the rise of advanced imaging techniques, DRE remains a valuable adjunctive tool in identifying high-risk and advanced PCa. When interpreted alongside mpMRI and PSMA PET/CT findings, DRE provides additional clinical insight, supporting its continued role in risk stratification rather than screening in the modern diagnostic workflow.
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.