Prostate-specific antigen: Establishment of the reference range for the clinically normal prostate gland and the effect of digital rectal examination, ejaculation, and time on serum concentrations

The Prostate ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Glenski ◽  
Joseph E. Oesterling ◽  
George G. Klee ◽  
Erik J. Bergstralh
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Reference Range ◽  
Prostate Gland ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Serum Concentrations ◽  
Normal Prostate ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Clinically Normal

scholarly journals Clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer using digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis of sensitivity and specificity

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson C. Okpua ◽  
Simon I. Okekpa ◽  
Stanley Njaka ◽  
Augusta N. Emeh
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Antigen Test ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen Test ◽  
Prostate Cancers ◽  
Antigen Tests

Abstract Background Being diagnosed with cancer, irrespective of type initiates a serious psychological concern. The increasing rate of detection of indolent prostate cancers is a source of worry to public health. Digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests are the commonly used prostate cancer screening tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracies of these tests may provide clearer pictures of their characteristics and values in prostate cancer diagnosis. This review compared the sensitivities and specificities of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen test in detection of clinically important prostate cancers using studies from wider population. Main body We conducted literature search in PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Wiley Online, CINAHL, Scopus, AJOL and Google Scholar, using key words and Boolean operators. Studies comparing the sensitivity and specificity of digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen tests in men 40 years and above, using biopsy as reference standard were retrieved. Data were extracted and analysed using Review manager (RevMan 5.3) statistical software. The overall quality of the studies was good, and heterogeneity was observed across the studies. The result comparatively shows that prostate-specific antigen test has higher sensitivity (P < 0.00001, RR 0.74, CI 0.67–0.83) and specificity (P < 0.00001, RR 1.81, CI 1.54–2.12) in the detection of prostate cancers than digital rectal examination. Conclusion Prostate-specific antigen test has higher sensitivity and specificity in detecting prostate cancers from men of multiple ethnic origins. However, combination of prostate-specific antigen test and standardized digital rectal examination procedure, along with patients history, may improve the accuracy and minimize over-diagnoses of indolent prostate cancers.

Comparing Two Modalities of Screening for Prostate Cancer: Digital Rectal Examination + Transrectal Ultrasonography Vs. Prostate-Specific Antigen

1995 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 225-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefano Ciatto ◽  
Rita Bonardi ◽  
Antonia Mazzotta ◽  
Claudio Lombardi ◽  
Roberto Santoni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Digital Rectal Examination ◽  
Transrectal Ultrasonography ◽  
Attendance Rate ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Rectal Examination ◽  
Biopsy Rate

Aims and background To evaluate the performance and feasibility of screening for prostate cancer by comparing screening modalities. Methods Prospective study of two comparable cohorts of healthy resident males aged 60 to 75 years. Screening attenders in the two invited cohorts were screened either by digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS), or by serum prostate-specific antigen determination (PSA: cutoff 4 ng/ml). Attendance and biopsy rates, predictive values, prevalence of screen-detected cancers, as well as screening costs were determined, and the efficiency of the two screening modalities was compared. Results 1425 subjects were screened by DRE + TRUS. Attendance rate was 33.7%, the biopsy rate was 2.7%, and the prevalence of detected cancers was 1.82%. A total of 1315 subjects was screened by PSA. Attendance rate was 66.9%, the biopsy rate was 2.8%, and the prevalence of detected cancers was 1.67%. Screen-detected cancer stage was more favorable than observed in clinical practice, and early detection was evident, with the prevalence/incidence ratio higher than 10:1 in both programs. The cost per subject screened was about 34,000 Lire for DRE + TRSU and about 30,000 Lire for PSA program. Conclusions The study confirms that early detection of prostate cancer is possible and that screening is practically feasible. Both screening modalities achieved comparable results as regards early detection, but screening by PSA had a higher compliance and lower costs. PSA seems the ideal test to be used in prospective controlled studies aimed at demonstrating screening efficacy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document