Active surveillance of low-grade prostate cancer using the SurACaP Criteria: A multi-institutional series with a median follow-up of 10years.

PURPOSE: To report on the oncological outcomes of active surveillance (AS) in low-grade prostate cancer (PCa) patients using the French SurACaP protocol, with a focus on long-term outcomes. METHODS: This multicenter study recruited patients with low-grade PCa between 2007 and 2013 in four referral centers in France. The cohort included patients meeting the SurACaP inclusion criteria, i.e., aged ≤75years, with low-grade PCa (i.e., ISUP 1), clinical stage T1c/T2a, PSA ≤10ng/mL and ≤3 positive cores and tumor length ≤3mm per core. The SurACaP protocol included a digital rectal examination every six months, PSA level measurement every three months for the first two years after inclusion and twice a year thereafter, a confirmatory biopsy in the first year after inclusion, and then follow-up biopsy every two years or if disease progression was suspected. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) was progressively included over the study period. RESULTS: A total of 86 consecutive patients were included, with a median follow-up of 10.6 years. Only one patient developed metastases and died of PCa. The estimated rates of grade reclassification and treatment-free survival at 15 years were 53.4% and 21.2%, respectively. A negative mpMRI at baseline and a negative confirmatory biopsy were significantly associated with a lower risk of disease progression (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: AS using the French SurACaP protocol is a safe and valuable strategy for patients with low-risk PCa, with excellent oncological outcomes after more than 10 years' follow-up. Future studies are crucial to broaden the inclusion criteria and develop a personalized, risk based AS protocol with the aim of de-escalating follow-up examinations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Grade 4.

Diagnosis of Chronic Constipation.

Patients with chronic constipation (CC) usually complain of mild to severe symptoms, including hard or lumpy stools, straining, a sense of incomplete evacuation after a bowel movement, a feeling of anorectal blockage, the need for digital maneuver to assist defecation, or reduced stool frequency. In clinical practice, healthcare providers need to check for 'alarm features' indicative of a colonic malignancy, such as bloody stools, anemia, unexplained weight loss, or new-onset symptoms after 50 years of age. In the Seoul Consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation, the Bristol stool form scale, colonoscopy, and digital rectal examination are useful for objectively evaluating the symptoms and making a differential diagnosis of the secondary cause of constipation. If patients with CC improve to lifestyle modification or first-line therapies, the effort to determine the subtypes of CC is usually not considered. On the other hand, if conventional therapeutic strategies fail, diagnostic testing needs to be considered to distinguish between the different subtypes of functional constipation (normal-transit constipation, slow transit constipation, or defecatory disorder) because these subtypes of constipation have different therapeutic implications and a correct diagnosis is critical. In the Seoul consensus, physiological testing is recommended for patients with functional constipation who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives (for a minimum of 12 weeks and recommended a therapeutic regimen) or who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. The Seoul consensus contains statements of physiological testing, including balloon expulsion test, anorectal manometry, defecography, and colon transit time.

Development and validation of an imageless machine-learning algorithm for the initial screening of prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing is a low-cost screening method for prostate cancer (PCa). However, its accuracy is limited. While progress is being made using medical imaging for PCa screening, PSA testing can still be improved as an easily accessible first step in the screening process. We aimed to develop and validate a new model by further personalizing the analysis of PSA with demographic, medical history, lifestyle parameters, and digital rectal examination (DRE) results. METHODS: Using data from 34,224 patients in the screening arm of the PLCO trial (22,188 for the training set and 12,036 for the validation set), we applied a gradient-boosting model whose features (Model 1) were one PSA value and the personal variables available in the PLCO trial except those that signaled an ex-ante assumption of PCa. A second algorithm (Model 2) included a DRE result. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PCa, while the aggressiveness of PCa was a secondary outcome. ROC analyses were used to compare both models to other initial screening tests. RESULTS: The areas under the curve (AUC) for Model 2 was 0.894 overall and 0.908 for patients with a suspicious DRE, compared to 0.808 for PSA for patients with a suspicious DRE. The AUC for Model 1 was 0.814 compared to 0.821 for PSA. Model 2 predicted 58% more high-risk PCa than PSA ≥4 combined with an abnormal DRE and had a positive predictive value of 74.7% (vs. 50.6%). CONCLUSION: Personalizing the interpretation of PSA values and DRE results with a gradient-boosting model showed promising results as a potential novel, low-cost method for the initial screening of PCa. The importance of DRE, when included in such a model, was also highlighted.

Factors Influencing Prostate Cancer Screening Intentions in Lebanese Men.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to investigate the perceived obstacles and willingness of Lebanese men aged 40 and above to undergo screening for prostate cancer. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cross-sectional research design was employed. The study utilized a survey questionnaire to collect data on various factors influencing screening behaviors. The research instrument consisted of a comprehensive survey questionnaire that incorporated validated scales to assess barriers to prostate cancer screening, intention to screen, and the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). RESULTS: The study found that the 120 participants had an average IPSS score of 7.20 ± 2.23, most people (70%) had mild symptoms of prostate cancer, whereas others had moderate (20%) or severe symptoms (10%). The majority of the men indicated a low to moderate inclination to undergo screening through Prostate-specific antigen testing, or digital rectal examination (DRE) (PSA), with 76% considering DRE and 70% considering PSA. The main barriers to screening included the dread of receiving distressing outcomes (48%) and a lack of understanding about the screening procedure (54%). The study identified key factors affecting the intention to undergo a prostate cancer screening. Regarding DREs, these factors included the perceived danger of the illness and prior information from doctors about prostate conditions. When it came to the intention to undergo screening through the prostate-specific antigen test (PSA), determinants included the perceived threat of the disease, one's general health perception, and prior information from doctors about prostate-related issues. Additionally, a significant proportion of participants believed that prostate cancer was not a serious illness (56%) and 57% thought DRE was embarrassing. CONCLUSIONS: The participants displayed a low willingness to get screened for prostate cancer. Implementing interventions that focus on increasing awareness of the disease and its associated risks could potentially reduce the barriers and boost participation in prostate cancer screening.

Abnormalities detected on digital rectal examinations in dogs are common and influence diagnostic and treatment plans.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of abnormal findings on digital rectal examination (DRE) performed during physical examinations at a tertiary referral veterinary hospital, to establish what abnormal findings are most common and whether they impact diagnostic and treatment plans, and to assess whether patient signalment or admitting service influences the frequency of abnormalities. ANIMALS: Client-owned dogs (n = 440). METHODS: Veterinarians performed DREs on dogs as part of a physical examination. Patient signalment and DRE findings were recorded in a standardized survey. Findings were deemed normal or abnormal and described. Whether the findings changed the diagnostic or treatment plan was also recorded. RESULTS: Abnormalities were detected on DRE in 160 of 440 (36%) dogs. Changes to the diagnostic plan occurred in 41 of 160 (26%) cases when an abnormality was found. Changes to the treatment plan occurred in 20 of 160 (12.5%) cases when an abnormality was found. Age (P = .2), sex (P = .9), and breed (P = 1) did not significantly influence the frequency of abnormal findings. Abnormal findings were significantly more common in dogs presenting to the emergency service than elective services (P = .005). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Among dogs presenting to a tertiary veterinary hospital, abnormalities found on DRE are common and change the diagnostic plan in 1 out of 4 dogs and treatment plan in 1 out of 8 dogs. This study supports the continued practice of DREs in dogs, especially in emergency settings, regardless of signalment.

Non-operative management in low-lying rectal cancers undergoing chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the outcomes of post-neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACTRT) wait-and-watch Strategy (WWS) in distal rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients from December 2012 to 2019 diagnosed with distal rectal tumors (T2-T4 N0-N+) having a complete or near-complete response (cCR or nCR, respectively) post-NACTRT and wishing for the non-surgical treatment option of WWS were included in this study. Patients were observed with 3 monthly magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs), sigmoidoscopies, and digital rectal examination for 2 years and 6 monthly thereafter. Organ preservation rate (OPR), local regrowth rate (LRR), non-regrowth recurrence-free survival (NR-RFS) and overall survival (OAS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and factors associated with LRR were identified on univariate and multivariate analysis using the log-rank test (P < 0.05 significant). RESULTS: Sixty-one consecutive patients post-NACTRT achieving cCR[44 (72%)] and nCR[17 (28%)], respectively, were identified. All patients received pelvic radiotherapy at a dose of 45-50Gy conventional fractionation and concurrent capecitabine. An additional boost dose with either an external beam or brachytherapy was given to 39 patients. At a median follow-up of 39 months, 11 (18%) patients had local regrowth, of which seven were salvaged with surgery and the rest are alive with the disease, as they refused surgery. The overall OPR, NR-RFS, and OS were 83%, 95%, and 98%, respectively. Seven (11%) patients developed distant metastasis, of which six underwent metastatectomy and are alive and well. LRR was higher in patients with nCR versus cCR (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: The WWS is a safe non-operative alternative management for selected patients attaining cCR/nCR after NACTRT with excellent outcomes.

PSA-density, DRE, and PI-RADS 5: potential surrogates for omitting biopsy?

OBJECTIVE: In contrast to other malignancies, histologic confirmation prior treatment in patients with a high suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA) is common. To analyze the impact of extracapsular extension (ECE), cT-stage defined by digital rectal examination (DRE), and PSA-density (PSA-D) on detection of csPCA in patients with at least one PI-RADS 5 lesion (hereinafter, "PI-RADS 5 patients"). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PI-RADS 5 patients who underwent MRI/Ultrasound fusion biopsy (Bx) between 2016 and 2020 were identified in our institutional database. Uni- and multivariable logistic-regression models were used to identify predictors of csPCA-detection (GGG ≥ 2). Risk models were adjusted for ECE, PSA-D, and cT-stage. Corresponding Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated. RESULTS: Among 493 consecutive PI-RADS 5 patients, the median age and PSA was 69 years (IQR 63-74) and 8.9 ng/ml (IQR 6.0-13.7), respectively. CsPCA (GGG ≥ 2) was detected in 405/493 (82%); 36/493 patients (7%) had no cancer. When tabulating for PSA-D of > 0.2 ng/ml/cc and > 0.5 ng/ml/cc, csPCA was found in 228/253 (90%, PI-RADS5 + PSA-D > 0.2 ng/ml/cc) and 54/54 (100%, PI-RADS5 + PSA-D > 0.5 ng/ml/cc). Finally, a model incorporating PSA-D and cT-stage achieved an AUC of 0.79 (CI 0.74-0.83). CONCLUSION: In PI-RADS 5 patients, PSA-D and cT-stage emerged as strong predictors of csPCA at biopsy. Moreover, when adding the threshold of PSA-D > 0,5 ng/ml/cc, all PI-RADS 5 patients were diagnosed with csPCA. Therefore, straight treatment for PCA can be considered, especially if risk-factors for biopsy-related complications such as obligatory dual platelet inhibition are present.

Is multiparametric MRI always needed in biopsy-naïve patients with abnormal digital rectal examination? A single-institutional experience combining clinical and micro-ultrasonography-based factors to optimize prostate cancer detection.

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of microultrasound-targeted biopsy (microUSTBx) and systematic biopsy (SBx) in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) among men with abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and suspicious lesions at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), and to compare the diagnostic performance of this approach with a mpMRI-guided targeted biopsy (MTBx) plus SBx-based strategy. METHODS: Biopsy-naïve men with suspicious lesions at mpMRI and abnormal DRE were prospectively evaluated between October 2017 and January 2023. csPCa detection rate by microUSTBx plus SBx and MTBx plus SBx was assessed and then compared by McNemar's test. The added value of prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd) was also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 182 biopsy naïve men were included. MicroUSTBx plus SBx achieved comparable detection rate to MTBx plus SBx in diagnosis of ciPCa and csPCa (ciPCa: 9.3% [17/182] vs 10% [19/182]; csPCa: 63% [114/182] vs 62% [113/182]). MicroUSTBx outperformed MTBx (ciPCa: 5.5% [10/182] vs 6.0% [11/182]; csPCa: 57% [103/182] vs 54% [99/182]). Using microUSTBx plus SBx would have avoided 68/182 (37%) unnecessary mpMRI, while missing only 2/116 (1.7%) csPCa. The decision curve analysis of suspicious microUS plus PSAd ≥ 0.15 ng/ml showed higher net benefit in the ability to identify true positives and reduce the number of unnecessary prostate biopsy in this subcategory of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of microUSTBx and SBx showed equal diagnostic performance to an mpMRI-based approach in biopsy-naïve patients with an abnormal DRE. The combination of this approach with PSAd maximize the diagnostic accuracy while lowering the need for unnecessary biopsies.

Digital Rectal Exams Are Infrequently Performed Prior to Anorectal Manometry.

BACKGROUND: Digital rectal examination should be performed prior to anorectal manometry; however, real-world data is lacking. AIMS: Characterize real world rates of digital rectal and their sensitivity for detecting dyssynergia compared to anorectal manometry and balloon expulsion test. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was conducted to examine all patients who underwent anorectal manometry for chronic constipation between 2021 and 2022 at one tertiary center with motility expertise. Primary outcomes consisted of the rate of digital rectal exam prior to anorectal manometry; and secondary outcomes included the sensitivity of digital rectal exam for dyssynergic defecation. RESULTS: Only 42.3% of 142 patients had digital rectal examinations prior to anorectal manometry. Overall sensitivity for detecting dyssynergic defecation was 46.4%, but significantly higher for gastroenterology providers (p = .004), and highest for gastroenterology attendings (82.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Digital rectal examination is infrequently performed when indicated for chronic constipation. Sensitivity for detecting dyssynergic defecation may be impacted by discipline and level of training.

A pilot study of an organised population-based testing programme for prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a digitally automated population-based programme for organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) in Southern Sweden. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pilot project for a regional OPT was conducted between September 2020 and February 2021, inviting 999 randomly selected men aged 50, 56, or 62 years. Risk stratification was based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density (PSAD), and bi-parametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Men with a PSA level of 3-99 ng/mL had an MRI, and men with elevated PSA level (≥3 ng/mL) had a urological check-up, including a digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS). Indications for targeted and/or systematic transrectal prostate biopsies were suspicious lesions on MRI (Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System [PI-RADS] 4-5) and/or PSAD > 0.15 ng/mL/mL. Additional indications for prostate biopsies were palpable tumours, PSA ratio < 0.1, or cancer suspicion on TRUS. Patient selection, mail correspondence, data collection, and algorithm processing were performed by an automated digital management system. Feasibility is reported descriptively. RESULTS: A total of 418 men had a PSA test (42%), with increasing participation rates by age (50 years, 38%; 56 years, 44%; and 62 years, 45%). Among these, 35 men (8%) had elevated PSA levels (≥3 ng/mL: one of 139, aged 50 years; 10/143, aged 56 years; and 24/146, aged 62 years). On MRI, 16 men (48%) had a negative scan (PI-RADS < 3), seven men (21%) had PI-RADS 3, nine men (27%) had PI-RADS 4, and one man (3%) had PI-RADS 5. All men with PI-RADS 4 or 5 underwent prostate biopsies, as well as two men with PI-RADS 3 due to PSAD > 0.15 ng/mL/mL or a suspicious finding on TRUS. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 10 men. Six men underwent active treatment, whereas four men were assigned to active surveillance. CONCLUSION: Our OPT model is feasible from an operational point of view, but due to the limited scale of this study no conclusions can be made regarding the efficacy of the diagnostic model or outcome.

Utilization of Rectal Examinations Before Magnetic Resonance Defecography Studies.

IMPORTANCE: More information is needed to guide referring subspecialists on the appropriate patient evaluation before magnetic resonance defecography (MRD). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate how often health care providers perform digital rectal examination (DRE) before ordering MRD to investigate causes of bowel and pelvic floor complaints. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort review, including MRD performed on female patients at an integrated health care system from 2016 through 2020. The primary outcome was the presence or absence of documented rectal examination in the year before defecography by the referring provider or 6 months prior by a primary care physician or pelvic floor physical therapist. We hypothesized that the overall rate of rectal examination would be high and unaffected by the referring provider's subspecialty. RESULTS: Three hundred-four defecography tests were performed, with 209 patients (68.8%) referred by gastroenterology providers and 95 (31.2%) from other specialties. Gastroenterologists performed DRE in 32.8% of patients, in contrast to 84.4% of patients referred by other specialties ( P < 0.001). When comparing subspecialties that most commonly refer patients for MRD (gastroenterology, colorectal surgery and urogynecology), there was a statistically significant difference between gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons ( P < 0.001) as well as urogynecologists ( P < 0.001) but no difference in the rate of rectal examination between colorectal surgeons and urogynecologists ( P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: At our single integrated health system, the rate of DRE before MRD testing varied significantly by specialty. Our findings highlight the need for better understanding of DRE utility in the algorithms for evaluation of bowel and pelvic floor disorders.

Intervención educativa sobre el examen y autoexamen de próstata en pacientes mayores de 45 años / Educational Intervention on Prostate Examination and Self-Examination in Patients older than 45

Introducción: El examen físico mediante el tacto rectal es una manera de encontrar temprano el cáncer de próstata. Aunque este resulta de suma importancia en las pesquisas, tiene poca aceptación debido a los tabúes arraigados en la sociedad. Por tanto, es necesario educar a la población masculina. Objetivo: Elevar el nivel de conocimientos sobre el examen y autoexamen de próstata en pacientes mayores de 45 años. Métodos: Se realizó un estudio cuasiexperimental de intervención educativa en un universo constituido por 62 pacientes mayores de 45 años pertenecientes al Policlínico Docente Área Este, de la ciudad de Camagüey. La muestra quedó conformada por 55 pacientes que cumplieron con los criterios de selección del estudio. Se analizaron las variables grupo de edades, nivel educacional; así como los conocimientos sobre las características generales del cáncer de próstata, prevención y control de los factores de riesgo, examen y autoexamen de próstata, antes y después de aplicada la intervención educativa. Resultados: En la muestra analizada predominaron los pacientes de entre 45-49 años (30,9 por ciento) y el nivel educacional técnico medio (43,6 por ciento), mientras se logró elevar el conocimiento en relación a las características generales del cáncer de próstata (40,0/94,6 por ciento), prevención y control de los factores de riesgo (20,0/92,7 por ciento), y de 7,3/87,3 por ciento en lo concerniente al examen y autoexamen de próstata. Conclusiones: Se alcanzaron valores estadísticamente significativos, de manera que se logró elevar el nivel de conocimientos en la muestra estudiada(AU)

Introduction: Examination by digital rectal examination is a way to early find prostate cancer. Although this examination is utmost important in the investigations, it has little acceptance due to the taboos rooted in society. In this sense, it is necessary to educate the male population. Objective: To raise the level of knowledge about prostate examination and self-examination in patients older than 45 years of age. Methods: A quasi-experimental study of educational intervention was carried out in a universe consisting of 62 patients older than 45 years of age from Área Este Teaching Polyclinic, in the city of Camagüey. The sample was made up of 55 patients who met the study selection criteria. The variables were analyzed age group, educational level; as well as knowledge about the general characteristics of prostate cancer, prevention and control of risk factors, prostate examination and self-examination before and after the educational intervention is applied. Results: In the studied sample, patients between 45-49 years of age (30.9percent) and the average technical educational level (43.6percent) predominated, while knowledge was raised in relation to the general characteristics of prostate cancer (40.0/94.6percent), prevention and control of risk factors (20.0/92.7percent), and 7.3/87.3percent regarding prostate examination and self-examination. Conclusions: Statistically significant values were reached, so that the level of knowledge was raised in the sample studied(AU)

Digital Rectal Examination Is Not a Useful Screening Test for Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Annual digital rectal examination (DRE) is recommended as a stand-alone screening test for prostate cancer (PCa) in Germany for 45+ yr olds. DRE diagnostic performance in men as young as 45 yr old has not been proved by a screening trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine DRE diagnostic performance in a screening trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This analysis was conducted within the multicentric, randomized PROBASE trial, which enrolled >46 000 men at age 45 to test risk-adapted prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening for PCa. INTERVENTION: (1) DRE was analyzed as a one-time, stand-alone screening offer at age 45 in 6537 men in one arm of the trial and (2) PCa detection by DRE was evaluated at the time of PSA-screen-driven biopsies (N = 578). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: (1) True-/false-positive detection rates of DRE as compared with PSA screening and (2) DRE outcome at the time of a prostate biopsy were evaluated. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: (1) A prospective analysis of 57 men with suspicious DRE at age 45 revealed three PCa. Detection rate by DRE was 0.05% (three of 6537) as compared with a four-fold higher rate by PSA screening (48 of 23 301, 0.21%). The true-positive detection rate by DRE relative to screening by PSA was 0.22 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.07-0.72]) and the false-positive detection rate by DRE was 2.2 (95% CI = [1.50-3.17]). (2) Among PSA-screen-detected PCa cases, 86% had unsuspicious DRE (sensitivity relative to PSA was 14%), with the majority of these tumors (86%) located in the potentially accessible zones of the prostate as seen by magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of stand-alone DRE to screen for PCa is poor. DRE should not be recommended as a PCa screening test in young men. Furthermore, DRE does not improve the detection of PSA-screen-detected PCa. PATIENT SUMMARY: Our report demonstrated the poor diagnostic performance of digital rectal examination in the screening for prostate cancer in young men.

Prospective analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of digital rectal examination and magnetic resonance imaging for T staging of prostate cancer.

Background: Accurate staging of prostate cancer (PCa) is the basis for the risk stratification to select targeted treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy rates of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and digital rectal examination (DRE) for preoperative T staging of potentially resectable PCa. Methods: From March 2021 to March 2022, patients with PCa with T staging by prostate biopsy were included. All examinations used postoperative histopathologic T staging as the reference standard. All patients underwent DRE and MRI before the puncture. Two blinded urologists and radiologists independently evaluated DRE and MRI, respectively. Before the examination, patients were then divided into early- (T1, T2) and late-(T3, T4) stage cancer. Analysis of a paired sample sign test was performed to determine differences between DRE and MRI. Results: A total of 136 study participants with PCa were evaluated histopathologically, of whom 71% (97/136) and 29% (39/136) were at the early- and late-stage cancer, respectively. MRI had a significantly higher accuracy (91.9% vs. 76.5%, P < 0.001) compared with DRE. Further, MRI showed a higher sensitivity than DRE to diagnose early PCa (92.8% vs. 74.2%; P < 0.001). However, the specificity was not significantly different between them (89.7% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.375). Area under the curve (receiver operating curve) values were calculated as 0.78 ± 0.038 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.86), 0.91 ± 0.028 (95% CI, 0.86-0.97), and 0.872 ± 0.028 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for DRE-, MRI-, MRI + DRE-based PCa predictions, respectively. The prediction performance of MRI was better than that of DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.632, P = 0.0003) and MRI + DRE (DeLong test, z = 3.715, P = 0.0002). Conclusion: For resectable PCa, the diagnostic potential of MRI in assessing the T stage was higher than that of DRE. However, DRE is still valuable, especially for patients with locally advanced PCa.

Compatibility of the radical prostatectomy specimen findings with digital rectal examination.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this research is to evaluate the compatibility of the pathological grading of prostate carcinoma in transrectal biopsy sample (TRUS), Gleason scores 3 + 3 = 6, and a palpable nodule in digital rectal examination (DRE) with radical prostatectomy samples in patients with prostate cancer. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with prostate cancer were included. Transrectal biopsy of the prostate and Gleason score were recorded in the histopathological report of the radical prostatectomy sample independently for each patient. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation of PSA level in patients was 8.52 ± 2.23. The average prostate volume was 46.0 ± 12.17 ml. The average density of PSA was 20.06 ± 7.74 ml. The results revealed that 36% of the people after surgery had similar pathology compared to the score before surgery (Gleason score 3 + 3 = 6) while 64% had non-homogeneous reporting (Gleason score 3 + 4 = 7 and other results). The study showed that low prostate volume before surgery was associated with a higher Gleason score after surgery. Although there was no significant relationship between PSA level above 10 before surgery and higher Gleason scores after surgery, there was a statistically significant relationship between PSA density above 15% and higher Gleason scores after surgery (P < 0.001). PSA density was a strong predictor for postoperative Gleason score (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The high level of PSA density before surgery increased the risk of higher Gleason scores after surgery by 95.99%. Over 64% of the individuals had inconsistency in tumor upgrading, and the palpable firm nodule in the DRE should not be ignored.

Are magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsies needed in men with serum prostate-specific antigen over 10 ng/ml and an abnormal digital rectal examination?

The European Association of Urology currently recommends the use of risk-organized models to decrease the demand of prebiopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and unnecessary prostate biopsies in men with suspected prostate cancer (CaP). Low evidence suggests that men with prostate-specific antigen >10 ng/ml and an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) do not benefit from prebiopsy MRI and targeted biopsies. We aim to validate this low evidence in a sizable cohort and knowing how many clinically significant CaP (csCaP) would go undetected if only random biopsies were performed in these cases. We analyze a subset of 545 men with PSA >10 ng/ml and an abnormal DRE who met the previous criteria among 5,329 participants in a prospective trial in whom random biopsy was always performed and targeted biopsies of PI-RADS ≥3 lesions (10.2%). CsCaP (grade group ≥2) was detected in 370 men (67.9%), with 11 of 49 with negative MRI (22.5%) and 359 of 496 (72.4%) having PI-RADS ≥3. CsCaP was identified in random and targeted biopsies in 317 (88.7%) men, in targeted biopsies only in 23 (6.4%), and in random biopsies only in 19 (5.3%). If only random biopsies were performed in these men, 23 of overall 1,914 csCaP (1.2%) would go undetected in this population. Prebiopsy MRI can be saved in men with serum PSA >10 ng/ml and an abnormal DRE and only random biopsy performed. However, a close follow-up of men with negative random biopsy seems appropriate due to the high-risk of csCaP in these men.

Podcast POEMs (BVS APS): Sobrerastreio de câncer prostático: é frequente? Epidemio: Sobrediagnóstico e sobretratamento

Olá! Eu sou o Luciano Duro, médico de família e comunidade, mestre e doutor em epidemiologia e neste sexto episódio da terceira temporada, vou falar sobre um estudo publicado em janeiro deste ano no Jornal do Conselho Americano dos Médicos de Família, falando sobre a solicitação do rastreio do câncer de próstata através do PSA e do toque retal para homens acima de 70 anos, ou seja, grupo cujo benefício é muito questionável, pelo baixo valor do cuidado agregado. Em epidemiologia, em função desta intervenção, vou falar sobre sobre rastreio, sobrediagnóstico e sobretratamentos, todas consequências indesejadas e com potencial de dano.

Dyssynergic Defecation: A Comprehensive Review on Diagnosis and Management.

About one-third of chronically constipated patients have an evacuation disorder, and dyssynergic defecation is a common cause of the evacuation disorder. In dyssynergic defecation, the coordination between abdominal and pelvic floor muscles during defecation is disrupted and patients cannot produce a normal bowel movement. The etiology of dyssynergic defecation is still unknown. Although a detailed history taking and a careful examination including digital rectal examination could be useful, other modalities such as anorectal manometry and balloon expulsion test are necessary for the diagnosis. Biofeedback therapy is one of the most effective and safe treatments. Here, we provide an overview of dyssynergic defecation as well as how to diagnose and manage this condition.

To what extent are anorectal function tests comparable? A study comparing digital rectal examination, anal electromyography, 3-dimensional high-resolution anal manometry, and transperineal ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal function tests are helpful for objective investigation of anorectal (dys)function. A variety of tests are available, but there is no recommendation when to perform which test. Furthermore, which test is the most accurate is controversial and the correlation between these tests is not very clear. The aim of our study was to examine the correlation of anal pressures and the possibility to diagnose pelvic floor dyssynergia between digital rectal examination (DRE) and several anorectal function tests. METHODS: Between January 2020 and April 2022, all men and women aged 18 to 80 years, treated at the Proctos Clinic, who were referred for pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) by the surgeon and underwent anorectal function tests, were included. DRE was performed to establish the anal pressure at rest and during squeeze and straining. Anorectal function tests included 3D high-resolution anal manometry (3D-HRAM), balloon expulsion test (BET), transperineal ultrasound (TPUS), and surface electromyography (s-EMG). RESULTS: A total of 50 patients, 37 (74%) females, were included. Median age was 51 years. Twenty-three (62%) females had a history of two or more vaginal deliveries. The most frequent reason for referral for PFPT was fecal incontinence in 27 (54%) patients. The assessed pressures and pelvic floor function measured with DRE by the surgeon and the pelvic floor physical therapist during rest, squeeze, and straining correlated in 78%, 78%, and 84%, respectively. Correlation between DRE and 3D-HRAM or s-EMG was better for squeeze pressures than resting pressures. The correlation between s-EMG and 3D-HRAM was better during squeeze than at rest with an agreement of 59% and 37%, respectively. CONCLUSION: DRE by an experienced investigator is of sufficient value for daily clinical practice to detect dyssynergia and to measure sphincter tone. Commonly performed anorectal function tests correlate poorly with DRE and with other anorectal function tests. When conservative treatment fails, further investigation is warranted; however, these results should be interpreted with caution. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER ADD TO THE LITERATURE?: Anorectal function tests such as the 3D high-resolution anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, surface electromyography, and transperineal ultrasound are all frequently performed in the diagnostic workup in patients with defecation disorders. No previous study has compared these tests regarding their outcomes, nor has the interrater agreement been measured regarding the digital rectal examination by two experienced observers. Furthermore, transperineal ultrasound is in all probability not frequently used and therefore underexposed in the diagnostic workup of patients with dyssynergic defecation.

Efficacy and accuracy of faecal sampling by a digital rectal examination for faecal immunochemical testing.

AIM: A digital rectal examination (DRE) during routine assessment for patients with abdominal symptoms provides an opportunity to obtain faeces from the glove for faecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Here, we compared sampling via DRE to the standard faecal sampling by patients. METHOD: Patients were recruited to a prospective observational cohort study between July 2019 and March 2020. Patients provided a sample for the FOB Gold Wide® which was compared to a further sample taken at clinic via DRE. Clinicians reported whether they obtained a 'good' sample filling all the grooves, a 'poor' sample filling some of the grooves or no faecal sample. Cohen's kappa was used to compare percentage agreement around a negative threshold of <10 µg haemoglobin/g of faeces. Sensitivity for serious bowel disease (SBD) was calculated. RESULTS: Of 596 patients who underwent attempted DRE sampling, there were 258 (43.3%) 'good' samples, 117 (19.6%) 'poor' samples and 221 (37.1%) with no sample to wipe in the grooves. Cohen's kappa dropped from 0.70 to 0.30 for the 'good' and 'poor' samples, respectively. Of those with DRE samples and definitive diagnostic outcomes, the sensitivity for SBD dropped significantly from 76.0% to 41.7% between 'good' and 'poor' samples, respectively (p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: A 'good' sample obtained by DRE provides comparable results to samples obtained by patients. This creates potential benefit in speed and ease of testing for patients. However, not all DRE sampling attempts are successful, and the clinician must be satisfied that enough faeces is obtained to wipe adequately into all grooves.