Yonsei Med J.  2005 Jun;46(3):414-424. 10.3349/ymj.2005.46.3.414.

Prostate-Specific Antigen, Digital Rectal Examination and Transrectal Ultrasonography: A Meta-Analysis for This Diagnostic Triad of Prostate Cancer in Symptomatic Korean Men

• Song JM
• Kim CB
• Chung HC
• Kane RL

• KMID: 1734078
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2005.46.3.414

Abstract

We conducted a meta-analysis using results from the Korean literature to determine whether prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or digital rectal examination (DRE) or transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) provides a better diagnostic outcome for possible prostate cancer patients. An extensive literature search of MedRIC database et al. (1980 to 2003) was performed using the medical subject headings "PSA", "DRE", "TRUS" and "prostate cancer". Of the 108 articles that we retrieved, 13 studies (2, 029 subjects) were selected for this meta-analysis. The criteria for quality evaluation were as follows: the study subjects must have been compared clinically for suspected prostate cancer, and the articles must have included individual data about sensitivity and specificity for this diagnostic triad based on the biopsy results as a reference standard. For the quantitative meta-analysis process the Hasselblad method was utilized. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for a PSA level greater than 4ng/mL were 91.3% and 35.9%, respectively; and those for a PSA level greater than 10ng/mL were 77.3% and 67.5%, respectively; and those for DRE were 68.4% and 71.5%, respectively; and those for TRUS were 73.6% and 61.3%, respectively. According to the results in a fixed effect model for PSA criteria, the estimates of d for PSA4 and PSA10 were 0.8517 [95% confidence interval (CI) : 0.6694, 1.0340] and 1.0996 (95% CI: 0.9459, 1.2534), respectively. Also, according to the results using a random effect model for both DRE and TRUS criteria, the estimates of d for DRE and TRUS were 0.8398 (95% CI: 0.7169, 0.9627) and 0.8002 (95% CI: 0.6714, 0.9289), respectively. The detection rate for combination testing of PSA, DRE and TRUS for the diagnosis of prostate cancer jumped further to 68.3% or to 76.8%. In conclusion, this study suggests that this diagnostic triad for prostate cancer was noneffective when they were used separately. Therefore, we recommend that the urologists should use PSA together with DRE and TRUS for the primary diagnosis of prostate cancer in men with lower urological symptoms.

Keyword

Prostate-specific antigen; digital rectal examination; transrectal ultrasonography; prostate cancer; meta-analysis

MeSH Terms

Humans
Korea
Male
*Physical Examination
Predictive Value of Tests
Prostate-Specific Antigen/*blood
Prostatic Neoplasms/blood/*ultrasonography
Rectum
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Reference

1. Troyer DA, Mubiru J, Leach RJ, Naylor SL. Promise and challenge: Markers of prostate cancer detection, diagnosis and prognosis. Dis Markers. 2004. 20:117–128.

2. Kataja VV. ESMO Guidelines Task Force. ESMO Minimum clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer. Ann Oncol. 2003. 14:1010–1011.

3. Cheon J, Kim CS, Lee ES, Hong SJ, Cho YH, Shin EC, et al. Survey of incidence of urological cancer in South Korea: A 15-year summary. Int J Urol. 2002. 9:445–454.

4. Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, Wu AH, John EM, Gallagher RP, Howe GR, et al. Prostate cancer in relation to diet, physical activity, and body size in blacks, whites, and Asians in the United States and Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995. 87:652–661.

5. Kolonel LN, Nomura AM, Cooney RV. Dietary fat and prostate cancer: Current status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999. 91:414–428.

6. Mettlin C, Jones GW, Murphy GP. Trends in prostate cancer care in the United States, 1974-1990: Observations from the patient care evaluation studies of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 1993. 43:83–91.

7. Engelbrecht MR, Jager GJ, Laheij RJ, Verbeek AL, van Lier HJ, Barentsz JO. Local staging of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2002. 12:2294–2302.

8. Cazares LH, Adam BL, Ward MD, Nasim S, Schellhammer PF, Semmes OJ, et al. Normal, benign, preneoplastic, and malignant prostate cells have distinct protein expression profiles resolved by surface enhanced laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry. Clin Cancer Res. 2002. 8:2541–2552.

9. Best CJ, Leiva IM, Chuaqui RF, Gillespie JW, Duray PH, Murgai M, et al. Molecular differentiation of high- and moderate-grade human prostate cancer by cDNA microarray analysis. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2003. 12:63–70.

10. Hernandez J, Thompson IM. Prostate-specific antigen: A review of the validation of the most commonly used cancer biomarker. Cancer. 2004. 101:894–904.

11. Ablin RJ, Bronson P, Soanes WA, Witebsky E. Tissue- and species-specific antigens of normal human prostatic tissue. J Immunol. 1970. 104:1329–1339.

12. Wang MC, Valenzuela LA, Murphy GP, Chu TM. Purification of a human prostate specific antigen. Invest Urol. 1979. 17:159–163.

13. Kang JH, Kim CI, Lee SJ. Clinical usefulness of prostatic acid phosphatase in prostate cancer: A comparative study with prostate specific antigen. Korean J Inf Dis. 1982. 38:1183–1189.

14. Watanabe H, Igari D, Tanahashi Y, Harada K, Saitoh M. Transrectal ultrasonography of the prostate. J Urol. 1975. 114:734–739.

15. Kim ND, Kwon SW. Suprapubic ultrasonographic findings of the prostatic diseases. Korean J Urol. 1982. 23:479–486.

16. Aziz DC, Barathur RB. Prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume: A meta-analysis of prostate cancer screening criteria. J Clin Lab Anal. 1993. 7:283–292.

17. Muris JW, Starmans R, Wolfs GG, Pop P, Knottnerus JA. The diagnostic value of rectal examination. Fam Pract. 1993. 10:34–37.

18. Haid M, Rabin D, King KM, Feistein CM, Janson KL, Levine SR, et al. Digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen, and prostatic ultrasound: How effective is this diagnostic triad? J Sur Onc. 1994. 56:32–38.

19. Hoogendam A, Buntinx F, de Vet HC. The diagnostic value of digital rectal examination in primary care screening for prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. Fam Pract. 1999. 16:621–626.

20. Hoffman RM, Clanon DL, Littenberg B, Frank JJ, Peirce JC. Using the free-to-total prostate-specific antigen ratio to detect prostate cancer in men with nonspecific elevations of prostate-specific antigen levels. J Gen Intern Med. 2000. 15:739–748.

21. Bunting PS. Screening for prostate cancer with prostate-specific antigen: beware the biases. Clin Chim Acta. 2002. 315:71–97.

22. Mistry K, Cable G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003. 16:95–101.

23. Hasselblad V, Hedges L. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull. 1995. 117:167–177.

24. Hasselblad V, McCrory DC. Meta-analytic tools for medical decision making: A practical guide. Med Decis Making. 1995. 15:81–96.

25. Song HH. Meta-analysis in medicine, nurse, and social science research. 1998. 1st ed. Seoul: Chungmoonkak Press.

26. Kang SG. The evaluation of prostate cancer: TRUS (transrectal ultrasonography of prostate), DRE (digital rectal examination), serum PSA (prostate specific antigen). 1991. Daejeon: Graduate School, Chungnam National Univ.;[Thesis of Master Degree].

27. Kim TH, Lee JG, Cho JH. Predictability of PSA, DRE and TRUS for detection of prostatic cancer in considering the non-surgical treatment of BPH patients. Korean J Urol. 1994. 35:736–742.

28. Park HK, Ahn HJ. Role of prostate specific antigen, digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Korean J Urol. 1994. 35:27–32.

29. Byun HS. Comparative evaluation of diagnostic values of digital rectal examination, serum PSA level and transrectal ultrasonography. 1995. Seoul: Graduate School of Korea Univ.;[Thesis of Master Degree].

30. Park SW, Oh KH. Early experience of transperineal prostatic biopsy under transrectal ultrasound guidance. Korean J Urol. 1995. 36:1076–1084.

31. Choi JH, Park HJ, Kwon CH. Clinical value of prostatic biopsy in patients with elevated serum PSA. Korean J Urol. 1996. 37:1110–1116.

32. Seo WK, Kim GH, Park CH, Lee SC. Prostate cancer detection in clinical urologic practice: Comparison of digital rectal examination, serum PSA level, and transrectal ultrasonography. Korean J Urol. 1996. 37:150–155.

33. Kim JH, Park HJ, Kwon CH. Detection of prostate cancer by digital rectal examination, serum PSA and transrectal ultrasonography. Korean J Urol. 1998. 39:472–475.

34. Jung JY, Cho KS, Byeon SS, Kim KM, Paick JS, Lee SE. The value of prostate specific antigen density in the diagnosis of prostate adenocarcinoma. Korean J Urol. 1998. 39:355–360.

35. Yoon JH, Kim BH, Choi SH, Kim SH, Choi HY, Chai SE, et al. Usefulness of transrectal ultrasound in diagnosing prostate cancer: Comparison with digital rectal examination, prostate-specific antigen and prostate-specific antigen density. J Korean Radiol Soc. 1998. 39:965–970.

36. Chang HJ, Sohn HG, Ha DB, Lee KS. Diagnostic value for early detection of prostate cancer of the digital rectal examination, serum prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasonography. Korean J Androl. 1999. 17:39–43.

37. Kim JH, Chang SG, Kim YW. Pathologic diagnosis and clinical findings in patients undergoing transrectal prostatic biopsy. Korean J Urol. 2000. 41:492–499.

38. Jung BC, Kim TH, Jeong SJ, Kwak C, Lee SE. The clinical usefulness of the prostate-specific antigen, prostate-specific antigen density, digital rectal examination, and transrectal ultrasonography in the screening test of prostate cancer in Koreans. Korean J Urol. 2002. 43:14–18.

39. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: Data-analytic approaches and some additional consideration. Stat Med. 1993. 12:1293–1316.

40. Potosky AL, Miller BA, Albertsen PC, Kramer BS. The role of increasing detection in the rising incidence of prostate cancer. JAMA. 1995. 273:548–552.

41. Kim CB. Clinical practice guidelines in Korea: Development and implementation. QA. 2001. 8:108–133.

42. Irwig L, Macaskill P, Glasziou P, Fahey M. Meta-analytic methods for diagnostic test accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995. 48:119–130.

43. Lijmer JG, Bossuyt PM, Heisterkamp SH. Exploring sources of heterogeneity in systematic reviews of diagnostic tests. Stat Med. 2002. 21:1525–1537.

44. Cochrane Methods Working Group on Screening and Diagnostic Tests. Recommended methods. 1996. http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane/sadtdoc1.htm.

45. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to review the evidence: Systemic identification and review of the scientific literature. 2000. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.

46. Hwang KH, Chung MK. Screening for prostatic cancers in Korean. Korean J Urol. 1995. 36:1062–1070.

47. Yoon JH, Jung SI, Kim SI, Choi MS, Lee SH, Jung GW. Estimation of prostatic cancer prevalence in Korea: An epidemiological survey in Kangseo-Gu, Pusan. Korean J Urol. 1998. 39:994–1000.

48. Egger M, Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997. 315:629–634.

49. Gerber GS, Thompson IM, Thisted R, Chodak GW. Disease-specific survival following routine prostate cancer screening by digital rectal examination. JAMA. 1993. 269:61–64.

50. Rifkin MD, Zerhouni EA, Gatsonis CA, Quint LE, Paushter DM, Epstein JI, et al. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography in staging early prostate cancer: Results of a multi-institutional cooperative trial. N Engl J Med. 1990. 323:621–626.

51. American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM). Screening for prostate cancer in American men. Am J Prev Med. 1998. 15:81–84.

52. American Urological Association (AUA). Prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. Oncology (Huntingt). 2000. 14:267–272. 277–278. 280

53. Singapore Ministry of Health (MOH). Prostate Cancer. 2000. 49. Singapore: Ministry of Health (Singapore);(Ministry of Health Singapore clinical practice guidelines; no. 3/100).

54. Smith RA, von Eschenbach AC, Wender R, Levin B, Byers T, Rothenberger D, et al. ACS Prostate Cancer Advisory Committee. ACS Colorectal Cancer Advisory Committee. ACS Endometrial Cancer Advisory Committee. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer: update of early detection guidelines for prostate, colorectal, and endometrial cancers. Also: update 2001-testing for early lung cancer detection. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001. 51:38–75.

55. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Screening for prostate cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002. 137:915–916.

56. Guideline synthesis: Screening for prostate cancer. National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC). 1998. http://www.guideline.gov/Compare/comparison.aspx?file=proscreen6.inc. (updated 2004).