0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Underutilization of Digital Rectal Examination When Screening for Prostate Cancer FREE

G. Divakara Murthy, MD; Daniel P. Byron, RPA-C; Donald Pasquale, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Internal Medicine, Albany Medical College, Albany, NY (Drs Murthy and Pasquale); and Stratton VA Medical Center (Drs Murthy and Pasquale and Mr Byron). The authors have no relevant financial interest in this article.


Arch Intern Med. 2004;164(3):313-316. doi:10.1001/archinte.164.3.313.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Screening for prostate cancer is controversial. American Cancer Society and American Urology Association recommend screening with both digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Often, PSA testing is not combined with DRE when screening for prostate cancer.

Methods  We collected a list of veteran outpatients who had PSA testing performed between June 1, 1998, and September 30, 1998, from our computerized database. We reviewed their records for documentation of age, race, urinary symptoms, family history of prostate cancer, DRE, and professional training and sex of the health care provider.

Results  Of the 588 records reviewed, DRE was not performed in 311 patients (52.9%). Digital rectal examination was not performed in 276 (53.2%) of 519 patients who had a PSA level less than 4.0 ng/mL; in 202 (58.7%) of 344 patients by male providers and in 109 (44.9%) of 243 patients by female providers (P<.001); and in 231 (61.1%) of 378 patients by doctors of medicine (MDs), 24 (40%) of 60 patients by physician assistants (PAs), and in 56 (37.3%) of 150 patients by nurse practitioners (NPs) (MDs vs PAs, P<.001; MDs vs NPs, P<.001; and NPs vs PAs, P = .42).

Conclusions  Digital rectal examination is underutilized when screening for prostate cancer. This leads to nondetection of some prostate cancers. Although the DRE rate was poor among all health care providers, female providers and physician extenders outperformed male providers and physicians, respectively.

PROSTATE CANCER IS THE MOST commonly diagnosed cancer in men (excluding skin) and the second leading cause of death due to cancer.1 It is diagnosed in about 1 in 10 men.2 It was estimated that in 2001, approximately 198 100 new cases and 31 500 prostate cancer–related deaths occurred in the United States.3 Significant risk factors include, but are not limited to, race and age.4,5 The peak age at diagnosis is the seventh decade. The incidence of prostate cancer is rising worldwide, caused mainly by demographic factors, particularly the increasing elderly population and, more importantly, the increasing number of cases identified following prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing.6

Screening for prostate cancer is controversial.711 To our knowledge, solid evidence of effectiveness of screening combined with early treatment to lower prostate cancer mortality has not been shown. However, screening for prostate cancer has been advocated by American cancer and urology societies largely because there is good evidence that administration of the test for PSA results in the detection of cancers at an early stage.12 In November 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics recorded a decrease in prostate cancer mortality. There is indirect evidence suggesting that prostate cancer screening of men older than 50 years decreased the incidence of distant disease, which influences the mortality rate.13

Prostate cancer can be diagnosed by an abnormal finding by digital rectal examination (DRE), serum PSA test, and/or transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), with confirmation by biopsy. Each test identifies a proportion of cancers, with higher rates of detection when they are used in combination.14 Most organizations recommending screening for prostate cancer advocate the combination of DRE and PSA testing.1517 The overall detection rate of cancer in the screened population is 2.5% by DRE, which increases to 4.5% with a combination of PSA test, DRE, and TRUS.18 The positive predictive value of DRE ranges from 4% to 11% in men with PSA levels of 0 to 2.9 ng/mL and from 33% to 83% in men with PSA levels greater than 3.0 to 9.9 ng/mL. In one study, DRE alone allowed detection of 264 (55.8%) of 473 cancers; 82 (17.3%) of the 473 cancers would have remained undetected by PSA-based screening alone.19

In our medical center, we have observed that serum PSA testing is commonly performed but DREs appear inconsistent. To better define suspected underutilization of DRE, we decided to study the frequency of combining DRE with PSA testing when screening for prostate cancer.

The study was approved by the institutional review board of Stratton VA Medical Center, Albany, NY. We collected a list of veteran outpatients who had PSA testing performed between June 1, 1998, and September 30, 1998, from our computerized database. We reviewed their records for documentation by any health care provider of age, race, urinary symptoms, family history of prostate cancer, DRE, and professional training and sex of the health care provider. Patients followed by the Division of Urology and patients who had a history of prostate cancer were excluded from the study. If DRE was performed, then the timing of DRE in relation to PSA testing was recorded.

We considered DRE to have been performed if it was done within 6 months of performing the PSA test. A 6-month period was allowed in the study because some health care providers may not perform DRE and PSA testing at the same visit. The 6-month period allowed for reasonable time for a provider to perform a DRE in addition to PSA testing. We considered DRE to have been performed irrespective of who had performed it (eg, a PSA test might have been ordered by a primary care provider, but the DRE was done by a gastroenterologist for another reason). If there was no documentation of patients having urinary symptoms or family history of prostate cancer, then they were considered to be absent.

Prevalence of DRE was determined for each major provider group (physician assistants [PAs], nurse practitioners [NPs], and doctors of medicine [MDs]) and for sex of the provider. In statisical analysis, proportions of specific groups where DRE was performed were analyzed for significant differences using χ2 analysis (P<.05 was considered to indicate a significant difference).

Study participant data for patients who had undergone PSA testing is given below.

Number of patients between ages 50 and 74 years is given because this age group is screened most for prostate cancer.

Table 1 gives the patient demographics and the number of patients who had DRE performed within 6 months of PSA testing (for all patients, n = 276 [46.9]). The mean age of African Americans was significantly younger compared with the rest of the study group. Also, there was disproportionately less representation of African Americans for screening for prostate cancer.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Demographics and Number Who Had Undergone DRE Within 6 Months of PSA Testing

Table 2 gives the number of patients who had undergone DRE within 6 months of PSA testing as grouped by the sex of the health care provider and by whether the provider was a physician or a physician extender. Physician extenders performed DREs significantly more often than physicians. Among all health care providers, female providers performed DREs significantly more often than their male counterparts. The number of asymptomatic patients younger than 50 years and older than 74 years who had PSA testing performed was 161 (27.4% of the total).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Number of Patients Who Had Undergone DRE Within 6 Months of PSA Listed by PSA Level and Sex and Type of Health Care Provider

While screening for prostate cancer remains controversial, in the present study, the decision had already been made to screen (as demonstrated by the PSA test). Since screening is already occurring, it should be done in a manner that current evidence suggests will maximize its usefulness. Our study clearly shows that DRE is underutilized in our medical center when screening for prostate cancer. If one were to accept that screening for prostate cancer is indicated, then the implications of not performing DRE are many. Digital rectal examination is most important in those with a "normal" PSA level because individuals with an elevated PSA level receive, presumably, further examination. Prostate cancer is diagnosed in 3% to 5% of the screened population by combining DRE, PSA test, and TRUS.19

According to the 2000 census, there are 28.5 million men between the ages of 50 and 74 years in the United States (http://www.census.gov). Assuming that 10% of these men would not be eligible for prostate cancer screening due to comorbidities, approximately 25 million are eligible for screening. Assuming a 3% detection rate for prostate cancer by DRE and PSA testing, an estimated 750 000 would be diagnosed by these tests. According to one study, 17% of the prostate cancers diagnosed were by DRE alone when the PSA level was less than 4.0 ng/mL.10 Assuming that only 10% of the cancers are detected by DRE alone, 10% of 750 000 (75 000) cancers of the prostate would be diagnosed by performing DRE alone. As in our study, if DRE is not performed in 50% of those screened, then about 37 500 cancers would not be diagnosed in the United States. Another way to look at the numbers would be if all 25 million eligible men are screened, about 80% (ie, 20 million) would be expected to have a PSA value less than 4.0 ng/mL. Assuming a cancer detection rate of 3% by combining DRE and PSA testing, 600 000 cancers would be detected. Assuming a 10% detection rate by DRE alone, then 60 000 cancers would be diagnosed by DRE alone. As in our study, if 50% of DREs are not performed, then 30 000 cancers would miss detection. We believe that the number of undiagnosed cancers is even higher, since many eligible individuals are not screened.

The omission rate for DRE screening for prostate cancer was highest among MDs (61.1%) compared with PAs (40%) and NPs (37.3%). There was no difference between PAs and NPs. Female health care providers, regardless of their professional status, performed significantly better than their male counterparts. Besides the risk that some prostate cancers may go undetected, omission of DRE eliminates an opportunity to examine the stool for occult blood. Some possible reasons for omission of DRE are lack of realization that both DRE and PSA testing are recommended when screening for prostate cancer, the perception that PSA testing is superior, and the belief that DRE will not add further to PSA testing. Also, it is easier and quicker to order a blood test than to perform DRE. We can only speculate as to why physician extenders outperform physicians. Physician extenders are allotted more time to evaluate each patient—the lower one is in provider hierarchy, the more diligent one is in adhering to the recommendations. Physicians presumably are more aware of the value of each test and are less likely to perform it if they perceive that DRE does not add much to PSA testing.

Although neither the American Cancer Society nor the American Urology Association sets an upper age limit when screening should stop, screening for prostate cancer is generally done for men between ages 50 and 74 years. Earlier screening is recommended for high-risk groups such as African American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer.17 Screening is recommended for anyone who has a life expectancy of at least 10 years.17 The value of testing outside published age and risk range recommendations is not clear. Our study reveals that PSA testing is often performed in asymptomatic individuals without any risk factors beyond being in the age group it is recommended for. Due to the nature of our veteran population, the number of patients younger than 50 years was small. Screening for prostate cancer in people outside the published age range recommendation is not uncommon, as reflected in a study in which urologists and family practitioners were surveyed: the mean age of screening initiation was 45 ± 7 years by urologists and 43 ± 7 years by family physicians.20

Cancers of the prostate detected by DRE alone for which the PSA level is "normal" are usually small and confined. But treatment of early cancer of the prostate is evolving, and there are new treatment modalities available now. Also, there has been some encouraging news about the declining mortality and declining incidence of distant-stage disease from prostate cancer, although it is unlikely that the entire decline is due to early detection by screening for prostate cancer. However, the decline seen in the incidence of distant-stage disease holds the promise that testing for early prostate cancer will lead to decline in prostate cancer mortality. Also, there are newer tests for detecting prostate cancer early, which may facilitate working toward this goal.21 Digital rectal examination is relatively noninvasive, nonmorbid, and inexpensive. Its effectiveness is dependent on the skill and experience of the examiner.

We conclude that prostate cancer screening guidelines of combining DRE with PSA testing are often not followed by primary care providers. This leads to nondetection of some prostate cancers. Although the DRE rate was poor among all health care providers, female providers and physician extenders outperformed male providers and physicians, respectively. Whether screening for prostate cancer by routine DRE reduces mortality remains to be determined.

Corresponding author and reprints: G. Divakara Murthy, MD, 4C, GIM/Primary Care, Stratton VA Medical Center, 113 Holland Ave, Albany, NY 12208.

Accepted for publication February 28, 2003.

This study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

We thank Ajay Murthy and Sandeep Murthy for their assistance with collecting and collating the data on Microsoft Excel. Statistical evaluations were done by Donald Pasquale, MD.

Parker  SLTong  TBolden  SWingo  PA Cancer statistics, 1997. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;475- 27
PubMed Link to Article
Lazaro  MThompson  M Update on prostate cancer screening. Lippincotts Prim Care Pract. 1997;1408- 420
PubMed
Greenlee  RTHill-Harmon  MBMurray  T  et al.  Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;5115- 36
PubMed Link to Article
Robbins  ASWhittemore  ASVan Den Eeden  SK Race, prostate cancer survival, and membership in a large health maintenance organization. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90986- 990
PubMed Link to Article
Steinberg  GDCarter  BSBeaty  TH  et al.  Family history and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate. 1990;17337- 347
PubMed Link to Article
Selley  SDonovan  JFaulkner  ACoast  JGillatt  D Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1 ((2):i) 1- 96
PubMed
Meikle  AWSmith  JA Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 1990;17709- 719
PubMed
Kramer  BSBrown  MLProrok  PC  et al.  Prostate cancer screening: what we know and what we need to know. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119914- 923
PubMed Link to Article
Stewart-Brown  SFarmer  A Screening could seriously damage your health. BMJ. 1997;314533
PubMed Link to Article
Editorial, UK experts advise against prostate cancer screening. Lancet. 1997;3491- 2
PubMed
Neal  DEDonovan  JL Prostate cancer: to screen or not to screen? Lancet Oncol. 2000;117- 24
PubMed Link to Article
Woolf  SH Should we screen for prostate cancer? BMJ. 1997;314989- 990
PubMed Link to Article
Coley  CMBarry  MJFleming  CMulley  AG Early detection of prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126394- 406
PubMed Link to Article
The International Prostate Screening Trial Evaluation Group, Rationale for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35262- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Smart  CR The results of prostate carcinoma screening in the US as reflected in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Cancer. 1997;801835- 1844
PubMed Link to Article
Thompson  IMZeidman  EJ Current urological practice: routine urological examination and early detection of carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1992;148 ((2 pt 1)) 326- 330
PubMed
Mettlin  CJones  GAverette  HGusberg  SBMurphy  GP Defining and updating the American Cancer Society guidelines for the cancer-related checkup: prostate and endometrial cancers. CA Cancer J Clin. 1993;4342- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  RAvon Eschenbach  ACWender  R  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;5138- 75quiz 77-80. [published correction appears in 2001;51:150]. CA Cancer J Clin
PubMed Link to Article
Schroder  FHvan der Maas  PBeemsterboer  P  et al.  Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer: Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;901817- 1823
PubMed Link to Article
McKnight  JTTietze  PHAdcock  BBMaxwell  AJSmith  WONagy  MC Screening for prostate cancer: a comparison of urologists and primary care physicians. South Med J. 1996;89885- 888
PubMed Link to Article
National Cancer Institute, Prostate Cancer Home Page. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancer_information/cancer_type/prostate/. Accessed September 17, 2003.

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Demographics and Number Who Had Undergone DRE Within 6 Months of PSA Testing
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Number of Patients Who Had Undergone DRE Within 6 Months of PSA Listed by PSA Level and Sex and Type of Health Care Provider

References

Parker  SLTong  TBolden  SWingo  PA Cancer statistics, 1997. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997;475- 27
PubMed Link to Article
Lazaro  MThompson  M Update on prostate cancer screening. Lippincotts Prim Care Pract. 1997;1408- 420
PubMed
Greenlee  RTHill-Harmon  MBMurray  T  et al.  Cancer statistics, 2001. CA Cancer J Clin. 2001;5115- 36
PubMed Link to Article
Robbins  ASWhittemore  ASVan Den Eeden  SK Race, prostate cancer survival, and membership in a large health maintenance organization. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90986- 990
PubMed Link to Article
Steinberg  GDCarter  BSBeaty  TH  et al.  Family history and the risk of prostate cancer. Prostate. 1990;17337- 347
PubMed Link to Article
Selley  SDonovan  JFaulkner  ACoast  JGillatt  D Diagnosis, management and screening of early localised prostate cancer. Health Technol Assess. 1997;1 ((2):i) 1- 96
PubMed
Meikle  AWSmith  JA Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Urol Clin North Am. 1990;17709- 719
PubMed
Kramer  BSBrown  MLProrok  PC  et al.  Prostate cancer screening: what we know and what we need to know. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119914- 923
PubMed Link to Article
Stewart-Brown  SFarmer  A Screening could seriously damage your health. BMJ. 1997;314533
PubMed Link to Article
Editorial, UK experts advise against prostate cancer screening. Lancet. 1997;3491- 2
PubMed
Neal  DEDonovan  JL Prostate cancer: to screen or not to screen? Lancet Oncol. 2000;117- 24
PubMed Link to Article
Woolf  SH Should we screen for prostate cancer? BMJ. 1997;314989- 990
PubMed Link to Article
Coley  CMBarry  MJFleming  CMulley  AG Early detection of prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126394- 406
PubMed Link to Article
The International Prostate Screening Trial Evaluation Group, Rationale for randomised trials of prostate cancer screening. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35262- 271
PubMed Link to Article
Smart  CR The results of prostate carcinoma screening in the US as reflected in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Cancer. 1997;801835- 1844
PubMed Link to Article
Thompson  IMZeidman  EJ Current urological practice: routine urological examination and early detection of carcinoma of the prostate. J Urol. 1992;148 ((2 pt 1)) 326- 330
PubMed
Mettlin  CJones  GAverette  HGusberg  SBMurphy  GP Defining and updating the American Cancer Society guidelines for the cancer-related checkup: prostate and endometrial cancers. CA Cancer J Clin. 1993;4342- 46
PubMed Link to Article
Smith  RAvon Eschenbach  ACWender  R  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;5138- 75quiz 77-80. [published correction appears in 2001;51:150]. CA Cancer J Clin
PubMed Link to Article
Schroder  FHvan der Maas  PBeemsterboer  P  et al.  Evaluation of the digital rectal examination as a screening test for prostate cancer: Rotterdam section of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;901817- 1823
PubMed Link to Article
McKnight  JTTietze  PHAdcock  BBMaxwell  AJSmith  WONagy  MC Screening for prostate cancer: a comparison of urologists and primary care physicians. South Med J. 1996;89885- 888
PubMed Link to Article
National Cancer Institute, Prostate Cancer Home Page. Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/cancer_information/cancer_type/prostate/. Accessed September 17, 2003.

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Fungal prostatitis: an update. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol 2014;36(3):167-76.