SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Digital Rectal Examination”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed2001

Characteristics of colorectal cancer that produce positive immunochemical occult blood test results on stool obtained by digital rectal examination.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify the clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer that show positive results on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test of stool obtained by digital rectal examination. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 9952 subjects received both an immunochemical fecal occult blood test of stool obtained by digital rectal examination and colonoscopy annually over a nine-year period of medical checkups; 64 patients with colorectal cancer were identified. The study subjects comprised 39 patients with colorectal cancer who had positive results (positive group) and 25 patients with colorectal cancer who had negative results (negative group) on an immunochemical fecal occult blood test of stool obtained by digital rectal examination. The positive and negative groups were compared in terms of their individual factors, such as site, size, Dukes classification and histological type of the cancer lesions. RESULTS: The prevalence of rectal cancers was higher in the positive group than in the negative group (P<0.05), but there were no differences between the two groups with respect to any other factors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that stool obtained during the digital rectal examination is unsuitable for detecting fecal occult blood, especially for the detection of proximal colon neoplasms.

Adenocarcinoma↗

PubMed1993

Disease-specific survival following routine prostate cancer screening by digital rectal examination.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prostate cancer mortality in men undergoing routine screening by routine digital rectal examination. DESIGN: Cohort study with a median follow-up period of 75 months. SETTING: Population consisted of volunteers at a university clinic and men in an institutional health maintenance clinic. PATIENTS: Fifty-six men with a mean age of 65 years (range, 52 to 79 years) diagnosed with prostate cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Patients treated initially by observation, external or interstitial radiotherapy, radical prostatectomy, hormone therapy, or combination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Kaplan-Meier analysis of time to local progression, distant metastases, death from all causes, and death from prostate cancer. Mantel-Haenszel log-rank statistic was used to compare outcome in men diagnosed on initial examination with those diagnosed on subsequent examinations. RESULTS: Clinically localized prostate cancer was diagnosed in 73% during an initial examination and 83% on subsequent examinations and (P.35). Grade distribution of tumors was similar in both groups. Overall 5 and 10 year survival of all cancer patients was 85% and 67%, respectively. Death from prostate cancer was 8% (3/38) in men diagnosed on initial examination and 33% (6/18) during subsequent examinations. Five- and 10-year disease-specific survival was 97% and 86%, respectively, for men diagnosed during the first rectal examination compared with only 81% and 57%, respectively, for men diagnosed on subsequent rectal examinations (P = .02). CONCLUSION: Routine screening for prostate cancer by annual digital rectal examination alone may be insufficiently frequent and/or sensitive to prevent significant mortality from this disease [corrected].

Aged↗

PubMed2003

Does digital rectal examination affect uroflowmetry measurements?

AIMS: To determine whether digital rectal examination (DRE) would affect uroflowmetry parameters and whether these findings were not due to the circaidan changes. METHODS: A total of 79 male patients (59 in study and 20 in control group) were included in this study. First uroflowmetry was done at 10:00 am just before the genitourinary physical examination in the study group. Second and third uroflowmetry was performed at the 6th and 24th hour after the first uroflowmetry. The same uroflowmetry tests were done in a control group without DRE. Voided volume and maximum and average flow rate parameters of uroflowmetry were interpreted in our study. The relationship among first, second, and third uroflowmetry parameters were determined in the study and control groups. RESULTS: There were statistically no difference between the mean first, or 6th- or 24th-hour uroflowmetry parameters of the study and control groups (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We could not find any effect of DRE on uroflowmetry parameters. Studies in a larger patient series would be appropriate for recommending DRE before or after uroflowmetry test.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

Safety and efficacy of digital rectal examination in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: Digital rectal examination (DRE) is often ignored or deferred in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The aim of this study was to determine the safety and efficacy of DRE in patients with AMI. METHODS: This was a prospective, comparative, stratified study in an inner-city teaching hospital. A total of 480 patients from intensive care and telemetry units were stratified into three groups. Group I included 160 patients with AMI in whom a DRE was performed and electrocardiographic (EKG) recordings were obtained. Group II included 155 patients with AMI in whom DRE was not done, but EKG recordings were made. Group III consisted of 165 patients without AMI in whom DRE was performed and EKG recordings were obtained. Sustained arrhythmias and vital signs were measured. RESULTS: None of the patients developed sustained arrhythmias and there was no change in vital signs. DRE resulted in the detection of several clinically significant findings. CONCLUSION: DRE was found to be safe in our stable patients with AMI.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Screening digital rectal examination and prostate cancer mortality: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of death from cancer in men in the United States. Digital rectal examination is the oldest and most commonly used screening test for prostate cancer, but as yet there are no studies which demonstrate its effectiveness. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted among members of a large health maintenance organisation to estimate the effect of screening digital rectal examination on mortality from prostate cancer. 150 men, aged 40-84 when cancer was diagnosed, who developed fatal prostate cancer, and 299 male controls matched for age who did not die from prostate cancer were studied. A history of screening digital rectal examination during the 10 years before the date on which cancer was-diagnosed was determined from medical records. RESULTS: A similar proportion of men who died from prostate cancer and controls had undergone at least one screening digital rectal examination during the 10 year interval (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.46). Similar results were obtained when a shorter interval (such as five years before diagnosis) during which screening histories were evaluated was considered, or in analyses in which men with a history of benign prostatic hypertrophy were excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that screening digital rectal examination does not reduce mortality from prostate cancer to any appreciable degree.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Prostate cancer screening within a prostate specific antigen range of 3 to 3.9 ng./ml.: a comparison of digital rectal examination and free prostate specific antigen as supplemental screening tests.

PURPOSE: Performing biopsy in all men with a serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) of 3 to 3.9 ng./ml. increases the sensitivity of prostate cancer screening compared with a PSA cutoff of 4 ng./ml. but decreases specificity and may contribute to over diagnosis. Therefore, we evaluated the detection rate and specificity attributable to digital rectal examination and percent free PSA within the PSA range of 3 to 3.9 ng./ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serum PSA was determined in 20,716 participants in the Finnish population based screening trial. Supplementary digital rectal examination was offered to men with a PSA of 3 to 3.9 ng./ml. during 1996 to 1998 (protocol 1). Those with a suspicious digital rectal examination finding were referred for biopsy. The screening algorithm was modified by substituting percent free PSA for digital rectal examination with a cutoff of 16% as a biopsy criterion in 1999 (protocol 2). In addition, biopsies were performed in all men with PSA 4 ng./ml. or greater. RESULTS: A total of 23 cancers (2.9%) were detected by digital rectal examination among 801 men, while percent-free PSA resulted in the diagnosis of 13 cases (4.8%) among 270 men with a PSA of 3 to 3.9 ng./ml. The detection rate of tumors with a Gleason score of 5 or greater increased from 1.6% (13 of 801 cases) to 4.4% (12 of 270) in the modified screening program. The PSA cutoff of 3 ng./ml. alone showed 88.6% and 87.5% specificity in protocols 1 and 2 but specificity increased to 93.3% and 91.7% using digital rectal examination and percent free PSA, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using percent free PSA increased the detection rate of aggressive disease compared with digital rectal examination and provided higher specificity than PSA alone.

Aged↗

PubMed1990

Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen.

The prostate cancer detection rate from screening by digital rectal examination and tactilely guided prostate biopsy is approximately 1.7%. Among 1,807 men a detection rate of 14.6% was achieved in a clinical urological practice by physician-conducted prostate ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and determination of serum prostate specific antigen. Results are presented in 5-year increments as well as for the group as a whole. The possible benefit to be derived from an improved detection rate is undetermined. Recommendations are made regarding the clinical use of these diagnostic modalities.

Aged↗

PubMed1991

Case-control study of screening for prostatic cancer by digital rectal examinations.

Although commonly thought to be an effective method of screening for prostatic cancer, digital rectal examinations have yet to be shown by controlled study to help prevent advanced forms of this disease. 139 men with metastatic (stage D) prostatic cancer (cases) were compared with an equal number of matched men free of this condition (controls), with respect to rectal examinations recorded in the medical records up to, on average, 23 years before the cases' initial diagnosis of prostatic cancer. Cases and controls were members of a large health maintenance organisation in northern California. In the 10 years before initial diagnosis (excluding the last three months) the average number of examinations for routine screening (2.45 vs 2.52) or to evaluate intestinal or rectal symptoms (0.44 in both) were similar in cases and controls, respectively. After adjustment for racial differences, the relative risk of metastatic prostatic cancer for men with one or more screening rectal examinations compared with men with none was 0.9 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.5-1.7. Screening by routine digital rectal examination appears to have little if any effect in preventing metastatic prostatic cancer. If there is a small benefit, it will be difficult to demonstrate by conventional epidemiological study.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

[Beliefs of men from Cali, Colombia, about digital rectal examination: findings of an exploratory study].

This study used the Health Beliefs Model to explore beliefs on digital rectal examination (DRE) to screen for prostrate cancer, prior to intent to submit to the examination, in men 45 to 64 years of age in Cali, Colombia. The 267 participants answered a questionnaire by means of prior selection through proportional sampling by quotas. A univariate and bivariate analysis showed that only 25.8% of the participants had submitted previously to digital rectal examination and that 68.1% intended to do so in the following 12 months. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between a history of DRE and schooling, socioeconomic status, health system coverage, perception of susceptibility to the disease, and perception of barriers and benefits. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were found between intent to submit to DRE and health system coverage, perception of severity of the disease, and perception of barriers. Given the low level of history of DRE and intent to submit to the examination, the results could help improve strategies to increase this practice at the local level.

Colombia↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Lower specificity of occult-blood test on stool collected by digital rectal examination.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of an immunochemical fecal occult-blood test for colorectal cancer between the stool specimens obtained during the routine screening and those during the digital rectal examination. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and fourteen patients with colorectal cancer and 228 healthy controls served as subjects of the study. Fecal occult-blood was tested by both of two methods; by the routine screening and by the digital rectal examination, and the sensitivity and specificity of an immunochemical fecal occult-blood test were determined in these two methods. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity were 79.8% and 96.5% in the routine screening method, and 86.0% and 79.8% in the digital rectal examination method, respectively, showing a significant difference in the specificity (P < 0.01) between these two stool collection methods. There was no significant difference in the sensitivity between these two stool collection methods. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that the stool specimens collected at the time of the digital rectal examination is not suitable for testing of fecal occult-blood.

Colorectal Neoplasms↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Clinical utilization of digital rectal examination and fecal occult blood testing upon hospital admission.

GOALS: The objective of our investigation was to examine the clinical utilization of digital rectal examination (DRE) and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) at hospital admission. BACKGROUND: DRE at the time of hospital admission is frequently accompanied by FOBT. However, the utility of DRE with FOBT in this setting is unknown. STUDY: The study cohort comprised consecutive admissions to an internal medicine service over a 3-month period. Patient characteristics were compared for subjects by DRE performance and FOBT result. Follow-up endoscopic procedures within 1 year of admission were recorded. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 806 of 832 patients (96.9%). Three hundred forty eight patients underwent DRE on admission (43.2%). Patients undergoing DRE/FOBT were older (mean age 60.4+/-18.4 y vs. 55.0+/-19.6 y, P<0.001). Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding symptoms (relative risk 11.2, 95% confidence interval 5.47-23.0) or a past history of GI bleeding (relative risk 2.98, 95% confidence interval 1.93-4.58) were more likely to undergo DRE/FOBT. Among 130 (37.4%) patients with a positive FOBT, 72 (51.6%) had no history of GI bleeding symptoms; these patients were substantially less likely to undergo follow-up examination(s) than patients with a positive FOBT and a history of GI bleeding symptoms (30.6% vs. 82.8%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, patients with a past history of GI disease or symptoms were more likely to undergo FOBT. Follow-up evaluation of positive FOBT in the absence of GI bleeding symptoms was very low. Low utilization and follow-up rates may limit the utility of admission DRE with FOBT for cancer screening.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Anal inspection and digital rectal examination compared to anorectal physiology tests and endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Anal inspection and digital rectal examination are routinely performed in fecal incontinent patients but it is not clear to what extent they contribute to the diagnostic work-up. We examined if and how findings of anal inspection and rectal examination are associated with anorectal function tests and endoanal ultrasonography. METHODS: A cohort of fecal incontinent patients (n=312, 90% females; mean age 59) prospectively underwent anal inspection and rectal examination. Findings were compared with results of anorectal function tests and endoanal ultrasonography. RESULTS: Absent, decreased and normal resting and squeeze pressures at rectal examination correlated to some extent with mean (+/-SD) manometric findings: mean resting pressure 41.3 (+/-20), 43.8 (+/-20) and 61.6 (+/-23) Hg (p<0.001); incremental squeeze pressure 20.6 (+/-20), 38.4 (+/-31) and 62.4 (+/-34) Hg (p<0.001). External anal sphincter defects at rectal examination were confirmed with endoanal ultrasonography for defects <90 degrees in 36% (37/103); for defects between 90-150 degrees in 61% (20/33); for defects between 150-270 degrees in 100% (6/6). Patients with anal scar tissue at anal inspection had lower incremental squeeze pressures (p=0.04); patients with a gaping anus had lower resting pressures (p=0.013) at anorectal manometry. All other findings were not related to any anorectal function test or endoanal ultrasonography. CONCLUSIONS: Anal inspection and digital rectal examination can give accurate information about internal and external anal sphincter function but are inaccurate for determining external anal sphincter defects <90 degrees. Therefore, a sufficient diagnostic work-up should comprise at least rectal examination, anal inspection and endoanal ultrasonography.

Anal Canal↗

PubMed2004

Significance of routine digital rectal examination in adults presenting with abdominal pain.

AIM: Routine digital rectal examination (DRE) in children with abdominal pain has slowly gone out of practice but is still performed routinely in adults. This study was undertaken to assess the significance of routine DRE in adults with acute abdominal pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 consecutive adults admitted to the emergency surgical unit with acute abdominal pain were studied prospectively. Following DRE, patients who were willing to participate in the study were requested to complete an anonymous questionnaire. The house officer conducted the rectal examination at admission and also completed an evaluation sheet. RESULTS: A working diagnosis of acute appendicitis in 38 patients and gastroduodenal, pancreatobiliary pathology in 24 patients was made. DRE did not alter clinical diagnosis or initial management in any of the 100 patients. Routine DRE did not detect any unrelated pathology. Of the patients, 93 wanted to know why rectal examination was required. Overall, 78 patients rated the DRE as uncomfortable. Although 43 were willing for DRE as a routine, 54 patients preferred to have the DRE at the time of other bowel tests rather than at the time of the emergency admission. CONCLUSIONS: Various routine medical procedures have given way to evidence-based practice. This study has demonstrated the limited role of routine DRE in adults with no anorectal or GI symptoms during their initial evaluation for acute abdominal pain.

Abdominal Pain↗

PubMed1997

Effect of digital rectal examination and needle biopsy on serum total and percentage of free prostate specific antigen levels.

PURPOSE: We determined the effect of digital rectal examination and prostatic biopsy on serum total and free prostate specific antigen (PSA) concentrations in men undergoing screening for prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 93 men recruited from our PSA screening program we measured the serum concentrations of total and free PSA on 3 occasions during a 30-day interval before performing digital rectal examination. Total and free PSA measurements were repeated 1 and 24 hours after the rectal examination. Serum total and free PSA also was measured immediately before, and 1 hour, 24 hours and 1 week after prostatic biopsy in 30 men. RESULTS: Biological variation for total and free PSA was 14.7 and 14.0%, respectively. At 1 hour after rectal examination total and free PSA increased by more than the biological variation in 31 and 48% of the men, respectively. Increases were significantly greater in men whose initial PSA concentrations were less than 4.0 ng./ml. There was a dramatic increase in total and percentage of free PSA in all men 1 hour after prostatic biopsy. Increases in percentage of free PSA were greater in men whose biopsies revealed cancer. Total PSA remained elevated for at least 1 week in most men, while percentage of free PSA returned to within or less than the biological variation of the baseline level in 90% of the men by 24 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Digital rectal examination causes a modest increase in total and percentage of free PSA. Prostate needle biopsy causes more dramatic increases in both forms of PSA. Free PSA is preferentially released into the serum after prostatic manipulation and appears to be cleared more rapidly than complexed PSA. The differential return of the different PSA forms to baseline levels after biopsy could affect the use of measurements of the percentage of free PSA in clinical practice.

Aged↗

PubMed1991

Digital rectal examination and carcinoma of the prostate.

Urologists have considered themselves to be the experts in the use of digital rectal examination for the evaluation of diseases of the prostate. However, without close attention to the teaching of this examination, it probably is inaccurate and unreliable. Moreover, many patients who are destined to die of prostate cancer never develop a palpable abnormality. In patients with prostate cancer, a palpable abnormality usually indicates the presence of carcinoma, but the majority of patients will be upstaged by pathologic examination. In patients undergoing a digitally guided biopsy, it appears critical that those with a negative biopsy be followed closely, as they have a measurable risk of developing overt carcinoma. It is unclear how transrectal ultrasound will interface with digital rectal examination because of the multiple echo patterns this disease can exhibit.

Humans↗

PubMed1991

Transrectal ultrasound, digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen: preliminary results of an early detection program for prostate cancer.

Three hundred and ninety eight self-referred men with no histories of prostate problems were followed once each year for up to four years to determine the feasibility of early prostate cancer detection by digital rectal examination, transrectal ultrasound, and prostate-specific antigen. Evaluation of prostate-specific antigen was based on a polyclonal level of normal of 2.6 nanograms per milliliter by the Yang assay. Biopsies were performed when indicated by either transrectal ultrasound or digital rectal examination. The overall cancer detection rate for the four year period was 6.3 percent. A 3:1 cancer detection advantage of transrectal ultrasound over digital rectal examination was shown. Transrectal ultrasound and prostate-specific antigen each detected 92 percent of the proven cancers, and were complementary when either test was normal, together detecting 100 percent of the cancers. Thirty two percent (8/25) of all cancers were detected by digital examination, with digital exam having no predictive power after two study years. Prostate-specific antigen as an initial screening test for early prostate cancer may identify a suspicious group, whom may further be evaluated by transrectal ultrasound and digital exam. Results of this study lend credibility to the large scale randomized screening study proposed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health in which prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination are to be used as initial tests for prostate cancer detection.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Underutilization of digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer.

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.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Prostate cancer detection in Black and White men with abnormal digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen less then 4 ng./ml.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer is more common in black than in white American men. Experience in a longitudinal prostate cancer screening program implies that cancer detection is greater in black than in white men with an abnormal digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen (PSA) less than 4 ng./ml. We investigated potential racial differences in cancer detection in men treated in clinical practice who had an abnormal digital rectal examination and PSA less than 4 ng./ml. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 1992 and December 1999 prostate biopsy was done at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 179 black and 357 white men with an abnormal digital rectal examination, PSA less than 4 ng./ml. and no history of prostate surgery. Significant racial differences in demographic and clinical parameters were limited to PSA, which was higher in black men (p = 0.01). RESULTS: Cancer was detected in 38 black (21%) and 65 white (18%) men (p = 0.42). There were no significant racial differences in the PSA adjusted cancer detection rate or in the Gleason score of detected disease. In men with PSA less than 1.0, 1.0 to 1.9, 2.0 to 2.9 and 3.0 to 3.9 ng./ml. the detection rate was 4%, 15%, 27% and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice prostate cancer detection appears to be equivalent in black and white men when an abnormal digital rectal examination is the only indication of malignancy.

Black or African American↗