Does an asymmetric lobe in digital rectal examination include any risk for prostate cancer? results of 1495 biopsies

被引:1
|
作者
Yilmaz, Omer [1 ]
Kurul, Ozgur [1 ]
Ates, Ferhat [1 ]
Soydan, Hasan [1 ]
Aktas, Zeki [1 ]
机构
[1] GATA Haydarpasa Teaching Hosp, Dept Urol, Istanbul, Turkey
来源
INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL | 2016年 / 42卷 / 04期
关键词
Prostate; Neoplasms; Digital Rectal Examination; BENIGN PROSTATE; ANTIGEN LEVELS; MEN; TRIAL; VARIABILITY; HYPERPLASIA; VOLUME;
D O I
10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2014.0598
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: Despite the well-known findings related to malignity in DRE such as nodule and induration, asymmetry of prostatic lobes, seen relatively, were investigated in a few studies as a predictor of prostate cancer so that there is no universally expected conclusion about asymmetry. We aimed to compare cancer detection rate of normal, asymmetric or suspicious findings in DRE by using biopsy results. Materials and Methods: Data of 1495 patients underwent prostate biopsy between 2006-2014 were searched retrospectively. Biopsy indications were abnormal DRE and or elevated PSA level(>4ng/mL). DRE findings were recorded as Group 1: Benign DRE, Group 2: Asymmetry and Group 3: Nodule/induration. Age, prostatic volume, biopsy results and PSA levels were recorded. Results: Mean age, prostate volume and PSA level were 66.72, 55.98 cc and 18.61ng/mL respectively. Overall cancer detection rate was 38.66 % (575 of 1495). PSA levels were similar in group 1 and 2 but significantly higher in group 3. Prostatic volume was similar in group 1 and 2 and significantly lower in Group 3. Malignity detection rate of group 1,2 and 3 were 28.93%, 34.89% and 55.99% respectively. Group 1 and 2 were similar (p=0.105) but 3 had more chance for cancer detection. Conclusion: Nodule is the most important finding in DRE for cancer detection. Only an asymmetric prostate itself does not mean malignity.
引用
收藏
页码:704 / 709
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prospective evaluation on the effect of interobserver variability of digital rectal examination on the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator
    Pereira-Azevedo, Nuno
    Braga, Isaac
    Verbeek, Jan F. M.
    Osorio, Luis
    Cavadas, Vitor
    Fraga, Avelino
    Carrasquinho, Eduardo
    de Oliveira, Eduardo Cardoso
    Nieboer, Daan
    Roobol, Monique J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2017, 24 (12) : 826 - 832
  • [2] Is routine digital rectal examination required for the followup of prostate cancer?
    Warren, Katherine S.
    McFarlane, Jonathan P.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 178 (01): : 115 - 119
  • [3] Prediction of Prostate Cancer Risk: The Role of Prostate Volume and Digital Rectal Examination in the ERSPC Risk Calculators
    Roobol, Monique J.
    van Vugt, Heidi A.
    Loeb, Stacy
    Zhu, Xiaoye
    Bul, Meelan
    Bangma, Chris H.
    van Leenders, Arno G. L. J. H.
    Steyerberg, Ewout W.
    Schroder, Fritz H.
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 61 (03) : 577 - 583
  • [4] The role of the digital rectal examination as diagnostic test for prostate cancer detection in obese patients
    Dell'Atti, Lucio
    JOURNAL OF BUON, 2015, 20 (06): : 1601 - 1605
  • [5] Finasteride improves the sensitivity of digital rectal examination for prostate cancer detection
    Thompson, Ian M.
    Tangen, Catherine M.
    Goodman, Phyllis J.
    Lucia, M. Scott
    Parnes, Howard L.
    Lippman, Scott M.
    Coltman, Charles A., Jr.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2007, 177 (05): : 1749 - 1752
  • [6] Patient Positioning During Digital Rectal Examination of the Prostate: Preferences, Tolerability, and Results
    Romero, Frederico R.
    Romero, Antonio W.
    Tambara Filho, Renato
    Brenny Filho, Thadeu
    de Oliveira Junior, Fernando Cesar
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2011, 37 (03): : 371 - 377
  • [7] Predictive value of digital rectal examination for prostate cancer detection is modified by obesity
    Chu, D. I.
    De Nunzio, C.
    Gerber, L.
    Thomas, J-A, II
    Calloway, E. E.
    Albisinni, S.
    Senocak, C.
    McKeever, M. G.
    Moreira, D. M.
    Tubaro, A.
    Moul, J. W.
    Freedland, S. J.
    Banez, L. L.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2011, 14 (04) : 346 - 353
  • [8] Efficacy of digital rectal examination after radiotherapy for prostate cancer
    Johnstone, PAS
    McFarland, JT
    Riffenburgh, RH
    Amling, CL
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2001, 166 (05): : 1684 - 1687
  • [9] Digital Rectal Examination Is Not a Useful Screening Test for Prostate Cancer
    Krilaviciute, Agne
    Becker, Nikolaus
    Lakes, Jale
    Radtke, Jan Philipp
    Kuczyk, Markus
    Peters, Inga
    Harke, Nina N.
    Koerber, Stefan A.
    Herkommer, Kathleen
    Gschwend, Jurgen E.
    Meissner, Valentin H.
    Benner, Axel
    Seibold, Petra
    Kristiansen, Glen
    Hadaschik, Boris
    Arsov, Christian
    Schimmoeller, Lars
    Giesel, Frederik Lars
    Antoch, Gerald
    Makowski, Marcus
    Wacker, Frank
    Schlemmer, Heinz-Peter
    Kaaks, Rudolf
    Albers, Peter
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY ONCOLOGY, 2023, 6 (06): : 566 - 573
  • [10] Use of Digital Rectal Examination as an Adjunct to Prostate Specific Antigen in the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer
    Halpern, Joshua A.
    Oromendia, Clara
    Shoag, Jonathan E.
    Mittal, Sameer
    Cosiano, Michael F.
    Ballman, Karla V.
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Hu, Jim C.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2018, 199 (04): : 947 - 953