Digital rectal exam vs. electronic “digitized” prostate exam
Rattachement africain : us, fr. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: The current era of multiparametric prostate MRI (mpMRI) and ultrasound (US)/ MRI fusion has improved early detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) while decreasing the number of unnecessary biopsies. Hence, this study aims to define the diagnostic value of pre-biopsy digital rectal examination (DRE) for screening and detection of csPCa, when there is access to mpMRI and prostate-specific antigen (PSA). METHODS: This retrospective, single-center study involved 3379 consecutive patients biopsied between 2012 and 2023 using both MRI/US-targeted fusion and systematic approaches. Biopsies were indicated because of elevated PSA levels and/or presence of cancer suspicious lesions on MRI. All patients underwent DRE and mpMRI prior to biopsy. csPCa was defined as Gleason grade group ≥2. Diagnostic performance of DRE for csPCa was compared to PSA and PSA density (PSAD) using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred eighty-eight (65%) patients were diagnosed with PCa and 1498 (44%) patients with csPCa. DRE was positive in 410/3379 (12%) patients. 261/410 (64%) DRE positive patients had confirmed csPCa, of which 160/261 (61%) were located in immediate proximity to the rectum. mpMRI was positive for focal lesion(s) in 1494/1498 (100%) csPCa patients. For csPCa detection, DRE had a sensitivity of 0.17, specificity of 0.92, a positive predictive value of 0.63 and a negative predictive value of 0.59. Compared to DRE (AUC 0.55 [CI95% 0.54, 0.56]), PSA (AUC 0.63 [CI95% 0.61, 0.64]) and PSAD (AUC 0.73 [CI95% 0.71, 0.74]) showed better csPCa prediction performance (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-biopsy DRE was found to add little to no diagnostic value for the routine diagnostic workflow in a constrained setting when PSA and mpMRI are initial screening tools for patients with suspected csPCa.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Digital rectal exam vs. electronic “digitized” prostate exam
- Date Crossref
- 21/11/2025
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.