The prognostic value of digital rectal exam for the existence of advanced pathologic features after prostatectomy.
clinical staging
digital rectal exam
national cancer database
pathologic features
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
Journal
The Prostate
ISSN: 1097-0045
Titre abrégé: Prostate
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8101368
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
revised:
29
06
2021
received:
12
01
2021
accepted:
12
07
2021
pubmed:
24
7
2021
medline:
22
2
2022
entrez:
23
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Accurate staging at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis is fundamental to risk stratification and management counseling. Digital rectal exam (DRE) is foundational in clinical staging of prostate cancer, even with a known limited interexaminer agreement and poor sensitivity for detecting extraprostatic disease. We sought to evaluate the prognostic value of DRE for the presence of advanced pathologic features (APFs) following radical prostatectomy (RP). All patients undergoing RP as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in the National Cancer Database between 2008 and 2014 were identified. Patients with additional malignancies, prior treatment with radiation or systemic therapy, incongruent clinical staging and DRE findings or without fully evaluable clinical staging were excluded. The primary outcome was the presence of postsurgical APFs, defined as positive surgical margins, nodal disease, or pathologic stage T3 or greater. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to account for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy grade group, percent of positive biopsy cores, and clinical stage. In total, 91,525 patients consisting of 69,182 cT1, 20,641 cT2, and 1702 cT3-T4 were included. The average age was 61.1 ± 7.0 years, and the average PSA was 8.6 ± 10.3 ng/ml. On multivariable analysis, cT3 and T4 were associated with the presence of APFs (odds ratio [OR] 11.12, p < .01 and 5.28, p = .04), however, cT2 was only slightly associated with the presence of APFs when compared with cT1 (OR 1.15, p < .01). Furthermore, cT2 was associated with more node-positive disease (OR 1.63, p < .01), positive margins (OR 1.06, p < .01), and more than or equal to pT3 disease (OR 1.22, p < .01). Overall, advanced clinical stage as assessed by DRE was independently associated with an increasing risk of APFs. For individual APFs, the greatest effect is noticed between clinical stage and nodal positivity and less so between clinical stage and positive margins. DRE continues to hold value, particularly for patients with locally advanced disease and potential lymph node disease.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Accurate staging at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis is fundamental to risk stratification and management counseling. Digital rectal exam (DRE) is foundational in clinical staging of prostate cancer, even with a known limited interexaminer agreement and poor sensitivity for detecting extraprostatic disease. We sought to evaluate the prognostic value of DRE for the presence of advanced pathologic features (APFs) following radical prostatectomy (RP).
METHODS
All patients undergoing RP as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in the National Cancer Database between 2008 and 2014 were identified. Patients with additional malignancies, prior treatment with radiation or systemic therapy, incongruent clinical staging and DRE findings or without fully evaluable clinical staging were excluded. The primary outcome was the presence of postsurgical APFs, defined as positive surgical margins, nodal disease, or pathologic stage T3 or greater. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to account for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy grade group, percent of positive biopsy cores, and clinical stage.
RESULTS
In total, 91,525 patients consisting of 69,182 cT1, 20,641 cT2, and 1702 cT3-T4 were included. The average age was 61.1 ± 7.0 years, and the average PSA was 8.6 ± 10.3 ng/ml. On multivariable analysis, cT3 and T4 were associated with the presence of APFs (odds ratio [OR] 11.12, p < .01 and 5.28, p = .04), however, cT2 was only slightly associated with the presence of APFs when compared with cT1 (OR 1.15, p < .01). Furthermore, cT2 was associated with more node-positive disease (OR 1.63, p < .01), positive margins (OR 1.06, p < .01), and more than or equal to pT3 disease (OR 1.22, p < .01).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, advanced clinical stage as assessed by DRE was independently associated with an increasing risk of APFs. For individual APFs, the greatest effect is noticed between clinical stage and nodal positivity and less so between clinical stage and positive margins. DRE continues to hold value, particularly for patients with locally advanced disease and potential lymph node disease.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1064-1070Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018;319:1901-1913.
Carter HB, Albertsen PC, Barry MJ, et al. Early detection of prostate cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013;190:419-426.
Stevermer JJ, Fink KS. Counseling patients about prostate cancer screening. Am Fam Physician. 2018;98:478-483.
Rais-Bahrami S, Siddiqui MM, Vourganti S, et al. Diagnostic value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based detection of prostate cancer in men without prior biopsies. BJU Int. 2015;115:381-388.
Carlsson SV, Roobol MJ. Improving the evaluation and diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in 2017. Curr Opin Urol. 2017;27:198-204.
Halpern JA, Shoag JE, Mittal S, et al. Prognostic significance of digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen in the prostate, lung, colorectal and ovarian (PLCO) cancer screening arm. J Urol. 2017;197:363-368.
Halpern JA, Oromendia C, Shoag JE, et al. Use of digital rectal examination as an adjunct to prostate specific antigen in the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. J Urol. 2018;199:947-953.
Ankerst DP, Straubinger J, Selig K, et al. A contemporary prostate biopsy risk calculator based on multiple heterogeneous cohorts. Eur Urol. 2018;74:197-203.
Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Interexaminer variability of digital rectal examination in detecting prostate cancer. Urology. 1995;45:70-74.
Partin AW, Yoo J, Carter HB, et al. The use of prostate specific antigen, clinical stage and Gleason score to predict pathological stage in men with localized prostate cancer. J Urol. 1993;150(1):110-114.
Prostate - Schema Index. Available from: http://web2.facs.org/cstage0205/prostate/Prostateschema.html. Accessed June 15, 2021.
Kattan MW, Eastham JA, Stapleton AM, Wheeler TM, Scardino PT. A preoperative nomogram for disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:766-771. https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/90/10/766/962026
Briganti A, Larcher A, Abdollah F, et al. Updated nomogram predicting lymph node invasion in patients with prostate cancer undergoing extended pelvic lymph node dissection: the essential importance of percentage of positive cores. Eur Urol. 2012;61:480-487.
MSKCC Pre-radical prostatectomy nomogram. Available from: https://www.mskcc.org/nomograms/prostate/pre_op. AccessedMay 21, 2020.
Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol. 2018;199:683-690.
Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 2017;71:618-629.
Tosoian JJ, Chappidi M, Feng Z, et al. Prediction of pathological stage based on clinical stage, serum prostate-specific antigen, and biopsy Gleason score: partin tables in the contemporary era. BJU Int. 2017;119:676-683.
Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:1415-1424.
Kozikowski M, Malewski W, Michalak W, Dobruch J. Clinical utility of MRI in the decision-making process before radical prostatectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0210194.
Lebacle C, Roudot-Thoraval F, Moktefi A, Bouanane M, De La Taille A, Salomon L. Integration of MRI to clinical nomogram for predicting pathological stage before radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2017;35:1409-1415.
Lim CH, Quinlan DM. Are doctors examining prostates in university hospital? Urology. 2007;70:843-845.
Murthy GD, Byron DP, Pasquale D. Underutilization of digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:313-316.
Fitzgerald D, Connolly SS, Kerin MJ. Digital rectal examination: national survey of undergraduate medical training in Ireland. Postgrad Med J. 2007;83:599-601.
Romero FR, Romero AW, Brenny Filho T, Bark NM, Yamazaki DS, de Oliveira FC. Patients' perceptions of pain and discomfort during digital rectal exam for prostate cancer screening. Arch Esp Urol. 2008;61:850-854.
Gosselaar C, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schröder FH. The role of the digital rectal examination in subsequent screening visits in the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC), Rotterdam. Eur Urol. 2008;54:581-588.
Cui T, Kovell RC, Terlecki RP. Is it time to abandon the digital rectal examination? Lessons from the PLCO Cancer Screening Trial and peer-reviewed literature. Curr Med Res Opin. 2016;32:1663-1669.
Boffa DJ, Rosen JE, Mallin K, et al. Using the National Cancer Database for outcomes research: a review. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1722-1728.