Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective analysis highlights digital rectal examination's limited role in predicting cancer in biopsy cohorts, implying specific testing pathways influence results.
To quantify the context-dependent contribution of digital rectal examination (DRE) to the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, ISUP grade group ≥2) in a contemporary biopsy cohort, comparing a non-mpMRI clinical pathway with an mpMRI-informed pathway including PI-RADS. We performed a retrospective analysis of 666 consecutive prostate biopsies at a single academic center (July 2017–December 2024). DRE was performed by urology residents and attending urologists. Two multivariable logistic regression models were constructed: Model A (full cohort, N=612) included age, log-PSA, log-PSAD, prior biopsy, and DRE; Model B (mpMRI subcohort, N=306) additionally included PI-RADS score. Discrimination was assessed using AUC and likelihood ratio tests. Sensitivity analyses evaluated any cancer (ISUP ≥1) and high-grade cancer (ISUP ≥4). csPCa prevalence was 30.7% (202/660), and DRE was suspicious in 52.3% (346/662). In Model A, DRE was independently associated with csPCa (aOR 2.18, 95% CI 1.45–3.28, p<0.001), although the gain in discrimination was modest (ΔAUC=0.009). In Model B, DRE showed borderline significance (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.01–3.52, p=0.048) with negligible discrimination gain (ΔAUC=0.002). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent findings. A dose–response gradient was observed: csPCa rates were 19.2% (normal), 31.6% (cT2a), and 58.9% (cT2b–T4) (p-trend <0.0001). DRE was independently associated with csPCa in the absence of mpMRI, but its incremental discriminative contribution was modest and became negligible once PI-RADS was incorporated. These findings support a limited, context-dependent role for DRE in contemporary biopsy pathways.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lagos-Beitz et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: