The Interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer

被引:59
作者
Gosselaar, C. [1 ]
Kranse, R. [1 ]
Roobol, M. J. [1 ]
Roemeling, S. [1 ]
Schroder, F. H. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med Ctr, Erasmus MC, Dept Urol, NL-3000 CA Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
digital rectal examination; interobserver variability; prostate cancer; screening;
D O I
10.1002/pros.20759
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND. To analyze to what extent the percentage of suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) findings vary between examiners and to what extent the percentage of prostate cancers (PCs) detected in men with these suspicious findings varies between examiners. METHODS. In the first screening round of the European Randomized study of Screening for PC (ERSPC) Rotterdam, 7,280 men underwent a PSA-determination and DRE of whom 2,102 underwent prostate biopsy (biopsy indication PSA >= 4.0 ng/ml and/or suspicious DRE and/or TRUS). Descriptive statistics of DRE-outcome per PSA-range were used to determine the observer variability of six examiners. Because this analysis did not correct properly for other predictors of a suspicious DRE (PSA-level, biopsy indication, TRUS-outcome, prostate volume and age), a logistic regression analysis controlling for these explanatory variables was performed as well. RESULTS. In 2,102 men biopsied, 443 PCs were detected (PPV = 21%). For all PSA levels the percentage suspicious DRE varied between examiners from 4% to 28% and percentage PC detected in men with a suspicious DRE varied from 18% to 36%. Logistic regression analysis showed that three of six examiners considered DRE significantly more often abnormal than others (ORs 3.48, 2.80, 2.47, P < 0.001). For all examiners the odds to have PC was statistically significantly higher in case of a suspicious DRE (ORs 2.21-5.96, P < 0.05). This increased chance to find PC was not significantly observer-dependent. CONCLUSIONS. Three of six examiners considered DRE significantly more often suspicious than the others. However, under equal circumstances a suspicious DRE executed by each examiner increased the chance of the presence of PC similarly.
引用
收藏
页码:985 / 993
页数:9
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Is it necessary to separate clinical stage T1c from T2 prostate adenocarcinoma?
    Armatys, SA
    Koch, MO
    Bihrle, R
    Gardner, TA
    Cheng, L
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 96 (06) : 777 - 780
  • [2] An abnormal digital rectal examination is an independent predictor of Gleason ≥7 prostate cancer in men undergoing initial prostate biopsy:: a prospective study of 790 men
    Borden, Lester S., Jr.
    Wright, Jonathan L.
    Kim, Jason
    Latchamsetty, Kalyan
    Porter, Christopher R.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2007, 99 (03) : 559 - 563
  • [3] A COEFFICIENT OF AGREEMENT FOR NOMINAL SCALES
    COHEN, J
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT, 1960, 20 (01) : 37 - 46
  • [4] Systematic 5 region prostate biopsy is superior to sextant method for diagnosing carcinoma of the prostate
    Eskew, LA
    Bare, RL
    McCullough, DL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1997, 157 (01) : 199 - 202
  • [5] ESKEW LA, 1997, J UROLOGY, V157, P102
  • [6] Predictive modeling for the presence of prostate carcinoma using clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound parameters in patients with prostate specific antigen levels 10 ng/mL
    Garzotto, M
    Hudson, RG
    Peters, L
    Hsieh, YC
    Barrera, E
    Mori, M
    Beer, TM
    Klein, T
    [J]. CANCER, 2003, 98 (07) : 1417 - 1422
  • [7] Comparison of clinically nonpalpable prostate-specific antigen-detected (cT1c) versus palpable (cT2) prostate cancers in patients undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy
    Ghavamian, R
    Blute, ML
    Bergstralh, EJ
    Slezak, J
    Zincke, H
    [J]. UROLOGY, 1999, 54 (01) : 105 - 110
  • [8] Screening for prostate cancer without digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound:: Results after four years in the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam
    Gosselaar, C
    Roobol, MJ
    Roemeling, S
    de Vries, SH
    van der Cruijsen-Koeter, I
    van der Kwast, TH
    Schröder, FH
    [J]. PROSTATE, 2006, 66 (06) : 625 - 631
  • [9] Prevalence and characteristics of screen-detected prostate carcinomas at low prostate-specific antigen levels:: aggressive or insignificant?
    Gosselaar, C
    Roobol, MJ
    Schröder, FH
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2005, 95 (02) : 231 - 237
  • [10] Needle biopsies on autopsy prostates: Sensitivity of cancer detection based on true prevalence
    Haas, Gabriel P.
    Delongchamps, Nicolas Barry
    Jones, Richard F.
    Chandan, Vishal
    Serio, Angel M.
    Vickers, Andrew J.
    Jumbelic, Mary
    Threatte, Gregory
    Korets, Rus
    Lilja, Hans
    de la Roza, Gustavo
    [J]. JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2007, 99 (19): : 1484 - 1489