Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences 3/2008

01.03.2008 | Original Paper

How Adequate is Digital Rectal Exam for Prostate Cancer Screening at Colonoscopy? Can Adequacy be Improved?

verfasst von: John B. Marshall

Erschienen in: Digestive Diseases and Sciences | Ausgabe 3/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose Screening by digital rectal exam (DRE) has been advocated as a means of detecting early-stage prostate cancer. We sought to determine the adequacy of prostate palpation at DRE at colonoscopy, and to devise a method of improving adequacy when the gland is incompletely felt. Materials and Methods Adequacy of prostate palpation in the left lateral position was prospectively assessed in 200 males 40 years or older undergoing colonoscopy, and correlated with body mass index (BMI) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) weight categories. If the prostate was incompletely felt, the patient was asked to flex his knee(s) up toward his chest, and then the exam was repeated. Results The prostate was incompletely felt on initial DRE in 65 of 200 patients (32.5%). Raising the knee(s) toward the chest permitted complete palpation in 62 of those 65 cases. Incomplete palpation showed a strong correlation with BMI (P < 0.0001) and weight category: 3/36 (8.3%) for patients with normal body weight, 14/89 (15.7%) for overweight, 42/68 (61.8%) for obesity, and 6/7 (85.7%) for extreme obesity (P < 0.0001). There were 13 patients in whom no part of the prostate gland could be felt on the initial DRE, and which also correlated with NIH weight class (P < 0.0001). Conclusions The prostate gland is often incompletely palpated at DRE in the left lateral position at colonoscopy, and shows a strong correlation with obesity. Adequacy can be dramatically improved by having the patient raise his knee(s) up toward his chest, a maneuver that takes just seconds to perform.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M (2002) Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 52:23–47PubMed Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M (2002) Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 52:23–47PubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Harris R, Lohr KN (2002) Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:917–929PubMed Harris R, Lohr KN (2002) Screening for prostate cancer: an update of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 137:917–929PubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC, Levin B, Cohen C, Runowicz CD, Sener S, Saslow D, Eyre HJ (2002) American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52:8–22PubMedCrossRef Smith RA, Cokkinides V, von Eschenbach AC, Levin B, Cohen C, Runowicz CD, Sener S, Saslow D, Eyre HJ (2002) American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52:8–22PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB (eds) (2003) Colonoscopy: principles and practice. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (MA) Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB (eds) (2003) Colonoscopy: principles and practice. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (MA)
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Nadler RB, Bushman W, Wyker AW Jr (2002) Standard diagnostic considerations. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Mitchell ME (eds) Adult and pediatric urology, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 55–64 Nadler RB, Bushman W, Wyker AW Jr (2002) Standard diagnostic considerations. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Mitchell ME (eds) Adult and pediatric urology, 4th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 55–64
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Brendler CB (1998) Evaluation of the urologic patient: History, physical examination, and urinalysis. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ (eds) Campbell’s urology, 7th edn. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp. 131–157 Brendler CB (1998) Evaluation of the urologic patient: History, physical examination, and urinalysis. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED Jr, Wein AJ (eds) Campbell’s urology, 7th edn. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, pp. 131–157
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Willms JL, Schneiderman H, Algranati PS 1994 Physical diagnosis: bedside evaluation of diagnosis and function. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 533–563 Willms JL, Schneiderman H, Algranati PS 1994 Physical diagnosis: bedside evaluation of diagnosis and function. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 533–563
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: the evidence panel (NIH Publication No. 98-4083) (1998). National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (MD), pp xiv Clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: the evidence panel (NIH Publication No. 98-4083) (1998). National Institutes of Health, Bethesda (MD), pp xiv
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Murthy GD, Byron DP, Pasquale D (2004) Underutilization of digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer. Arch Internal Med 164:313–316CrossRef Murthy GD, Byron DP, Pasquale D (2004) Underutilization of digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer. Arch Internal Med 164:313–316CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
How Adequate is Digital Rectal Exam for Prostate Cancer Screening at Colonoscopy? Can Adequacy be Improved?
verfasst von
John B. Marshall
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2008
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Digestive Diseases and Sciences / Ausgabe 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0163-2116
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2568
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-007-9910-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2008

Digestive Diseases and Sciences 3/2008 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.