==== Front Ann Saudi MedAnn Saudi MedAnnals of Saudi Medicine0256-49470975-4466King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre 1735632310.5144/0256-4947.2007.73asm-2-73Original ArticleRelative contribution of digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in interpreting serum prostate-specific antigen values for screening prostate cancer in Arab men Sheikh Mehraj *Sinan Tariq *Kehinde Elijah O. †Hussein Ali Y.T. *Anim Jehoram T. ||Al-Hunayant Adel A. † * Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait † Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, Kuwait || Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University, KuwaitCorrespondence and reprint requests: Dr. Mehraj Sheikh Department of Radiology Faculty of Medicine, Kuwait University P.O. Box 24923, Safat, 13110 Kuwait. T: 00965 5330473, F: 00965 5330473, mehraj@hsc.edu.kwMar-Apr 2007 27 2 73 78 01 10 2006 Copyright © 2007, Annals of Saudi Medicine2007This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.BACKGROUND This study was conducted to determine the utility of digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in Arabia, an are of the world with a relatively low incidence of this disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS 329 patients suspected of having prostate cancer on account of raised serum PSA level (> 4 ng/ml), DRE or TRUS findings, underwent TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. Raised PSA individually as well as combined, or a lesion suspicious of carcinoma on DRE or TRUS was recorded as PSA (+), DRE (+) or TRUS (+), respectively. The contribution of DRE, TRUS and serum PSA to the diagnosis of prostate cancer was analysed. RESULTS Of the 329 patients who had prostate biopsies 109 cases (33.1%) had PCa. Of these 109 patients 56 (51%) had DRE (+), 77 (42%) had TRUS (+) and 49 (66%) had both DRE (+) and TRUS (+). Statistical analysis revealed that DRE (+) tripled the probability for cancer. PSA over a range of 10–50 ng/mL demonstrated an increasing cancer probability ranging from 2 to 3 fold. TRUS (+) was only significantly associated with cancer risk if PSA was elevated. The presence of all three factors increased the cancer probability by 6 to 7 fold. CONCLUSION TRUS findings are dependent on PSA for interpretation while DRE (+) with elevated PSA makes PCa more likely. ==== Body Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common neoplasm affecting elderly men. Radical prostatectomy is a curative method when the disease is organ confined. Therefore, early diagnosis of the disease is essential in lowering the morbidity and mortality of PCa. The detection of PCa is generally based on digital rectal examination (DRE), transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) findings and serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) determination.1 Several investigators have reported the feasibility of early PCa detection using DRE, TRUS, and PSA.2–4 Although DRE remains an efficient and cost-effective investigation procedure for PCa, it is rather subjective and empirical. The cancer detection rate of TRUS has been reported to be approximately 2-fold higher than that of DRE when used as a screening tool.5 The development of high definition TRUS probes has facilitated the detection of small prostatic lesions, which can be biopsied. This has probably increased the detection rate of early PCa, but the value of this modality in relation to the traditional method of DRE has not been finally determined. Serum PSA in asymptomatic men varies with race and age,6–9 and as such, the specificity of PSA is not high, particularly for intermediate values (4–10 ng/mL), and an excess of unnecessary prostate biopsies are performed on that basis. Attempts have been made to increase the specificity of PSA using PSA derivatives such as PSA density,10 PSA velocity11 and age-adjusted reference ranges,12 but none of these methods has significantly improved the predictive value in patients with intermediate total PSA values (4–10 ng/mL).13 The predictive capacity of DRE, PSA and TRUS, individually and in combination, has been reported predominantly from large North American institutions.14–21 This study was conducted to determine the utility of DRE, TRUS and PSA in the diagnosis of prostate cancer in Arab men, an area of the world with a relatively low incidence of the disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS This study was conducted on 329 consecutive men referred to the Radiology Department of Mubarak Al-Kabeer Teaching Hospital, Kuwait, as part of an investigation to exclude prostate cancer. All the men were of Arab origin (North Africa and the Middle East). The reasons for referral included suspected PCa on account of a raised serum PSA level (> 4 ng/mL), the finding of a palpable nodule or greater firmness of one prostatic lobe than the other on DRE, or the finding of a focal area suspicious of a neoplasm on TRUS of the prostate. A lesion suspicious of carcinoma on DRE or TRUS was recorded as DRE (+) or TRUS (+), respectively. Prior to digital or ultrasonographic examination of the prostate, blood was collected for the serum PSA assay. The assay was performed using the chemiluminescent assay method (Roche Elecsys Mannheim, Germany). Patients received prophylactic oral ciprofloxacin 500 mg 60 minutes before the procedure and continued with 12 hourly doses for 2 more days after the procedure (total of 6 doses). DRE was performed with the patient in the left-lateral position, and the results were reported as either normal or suspicious for carcinoma based on the finding of firmness or a nodule in the prostate. All DRE was performed by two urologists (EOK, AA) and the findings indicated on the request forms for TRUS-guided biopsy. TRUS was then performed using a GE Logic 500 scanner (GE Medical systems, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA) with a 7.5 MHz endocavity transducer (model E721), scanning the gland in sagittal and axial planes. All TRUS of the prostate plus biopsies were performed by two radiologists (MS, AYTH). The volume of the prostate was calculated using the prostate ellipse formula: Volume (V) =0.52(L×W×H), where L is the cephalocaudal length obtained from the longitudinal sonogram, W is the width obtained from the transaxial view and H is the antero-posterior height obtained transaxially. All the patients underwent biopsy mapping of the prostate with at least 8 systematic ultrasonography guided biopsies. Additional biopsies up to a maximum of 12 were taken, depending upon the size of the gland. If the gland was bigger, more areas were biopsied so that coverage was uniform. This was done subjectively and no objective criteria were used. The transrectal biopsies were performed at the apex, middle and base of the right and left prostatic lobes in the parasagittal plane. If a hypoechoic defect was demonstrated in the peripheral or central zone, an additional biopsy of that area was also performed. The biopsy specimens were fixed in 4% formaldehyde solution processed into paraffin and haematoxylin and eosin stained sections used to categorize the tissues into benign and cancer by JTA and this was the gold standard. Binomial logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the contribution of the various factors to the diagnosis of PCa. In addition we determined the specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive valve (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for DRE in the presence or absence of TRUS findings or PSA positivity (>10 ng/mL). Analysis was performed for PSA levels 10 ng/mL and above as we have observed in our previous study that the PSA levels between 4–10 ng/mL have poor discriminatory power. This is because PSA testing has a relative lack of specificity within the 4.0–10.0 ng/mL range, a diagnostic grey zone in which prostate cancer is present in only 25% of patients.9 This is consistent with our previous observation of the optimal cut off of 16.4 ng/mL via ROC analysis in this population.22 RESULTS Of the 329 patients who had prostate biopsies, 109 cases (33.1%) had PCa. The remaining 220 (62.9%) cases had benign lesions comprising benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) with or without prostatitis. There was no significant difference between the mean ages of the patients with PCa (66.3 years) and those without PCa 65.8 years, ranges 42–95 years versus 32–90 years, respectively. The mean serum PSA value was 60.80 ng/mL (range, 1.5–1566 ng/mL) and 18.6 ng/mL (range, 0.7–46 ng./mL) for patients with PCa and those without cancer, respectively. Table 1 shows the relationship between PSA values and diagnosis of prostate cancer. Of the 109 patients with PCa, 56 cases (51%) were DRE (+), 77 cases (42%) were TRUS (+) and 49 cases (66%) were both DRE (+) and TRUS was (+). DRE and PSA were independent determinants of the probability of PCa (Table 2). The strongest effect was seen for DRE as the presence of any positive sign on DRE tripled the probability of cancer. An intermediate effect was demonstrable for PSA and over a range of 10–50 ng/mL there was an increasing cancer probability, ranging 2 to 3 fold. Focal lesions on TRUS in those with raised PSA was also associated with a 2-fold increased probability for cancer. The presence of all three factors therefore increased cancer risk 6 to 7 fold. Above a PSA cut-off of 20 ng/mL, TRUS loses significance and mainly DRE and PSA retained significance in the model. The sensitivity, specificity, the PPV and the NPV for PSA are shown in Table 3. DISCUSSION DRE is the initial step in the diagnosis of PCa, and when an abnormal DRE is present, irrespective of the PSA level, a biopsy of the gland is recommended. Screening asymptomatic men in the cancer age group by this method has shown a detection rate of 1.3% to 1.7%.23,24 Wanatabe et al25 reported detection of 48 cases in 7235 apparently normal men over the age of 55 years (0.6%), while Lee et al26 detected 20 cases in 784 men over the age of 60 years (2.6%). The detection rates of the two methods are thus very similar and this rate represents only a small percentage of men with occult carcinoma. For the purpose of early diagnosis, however, even an isolated elevation in serum PSA has been suggested as an indication for biopsy, which yields an increased number of patients diagnosed with PCa, but also an increase in the number of unnecessary biopsies as well. Although DRE is a simple method employed for the detection of PCa, it is not useful for detecting early stage cancer since studies show its PPV is 22% to 33%,3,27–30 and more than 10% of examined patients with normal DRE findings have been found to have PCa.1,31 Philip et al32 in a study reported that 47% of patients with PCa were DRE (+), while 38.8% with DRE (−) had cancer. These authors concluded that DRE does not significantly contribute to the diagnosis of PCa, especially with PSA levels in the range of 2.5 to 10 ng/mL. In our study it was noted that DRE had a poor sensitivity for detecting PCa, being negative in about 85% of the cancer patients. On the other hand it was quite specific and a DRE (+) was only present in 15.4% of patients without cancer and as expected the highest PPV for PSA > 10ng/mL was for DRE (+) and TRUS (+) patients as well. The average cancer detection rates in the presence of a negative DRE in the literature are 21.6% (present study 12–22%) and 32% (present study 19–37%) when the PSA level was between 4 and 10 ng/mL or greater than 10 ng/mL, respectively. If PSA is positive then a DRE (−) must be viewed with caution and even more so if TRUS is also negative. In other words PSA is not very accurate in screening if both DRE and TRUS are negative. TRUS of the prostate gland has developed into an important adjunct for the diagnosis of PCa. The sonographic appearance of PCa is variable. With the early techniques it was reported that these carcinomas were hyperechoic.33 With the development of high frequency transducers and improved instrumentation, investigators reported that carcinomas, particularly when small, were most commonly seen as localized hypoechoic areas and that as the lesions enlarged, invaded other structures, and developed associated calcifications, they could appear hypoechoec, hyperechoic, isoechoic or of mixed-type echogenicity.34 Approximately 60% to 76% of the lesions appear as hypoechoic lesions on sonogram and in the other 24% to 40% the tumour is isoechoic and cannot be distinguished clearly from the surrounding tissue.35 Although TRUS is particularly useful in demonstrating that 70% of prostate cancers arise in the peripheral zone of the gland,36 it must be realized that a large percentage of hypoechoic lesions in the peripheral zone result from benign pathology. Hence the most important limitation of TRUS is that the majority of hypoechoic areas are not cancerous. TRUS-directed biopsies of such lesions reveal cancer in 20% to 40% of cases.3,33 This results in the strong interdependence of TRUS with PSA due to the increase in the specificity of TRUS findings as PSA increases. The specificity of serum PSA is only about 60% and 10% to 45% of patients with biopsy-confirmed PCa have serum PSA levels within the normal range.1,16,27,37,38 In the USA and Europe the detection rate of PCa increases with serum PSA above 10 ng/mL.7,39 In Arab men the total PSA valve >10 ng/mL appears to be the result of BPH with or without prostatitis (89%) rather than PCa (11%).9 In our study, 32% of the patients with PSA between 10 and 50 ng/mL had PCa whereas in patients with PSA above 50ng/mL, 72% had PCa. Lee et al3 reported that in a study of 256 prescreened patients, the PPV of TRUS alone, TRUS with DRE, and TRUS with DRE and serum PSA was 41%, 61%, and 71%, respectively. Cooner et al16 studied patients with hypoechoic findings visualized by TRUS and reported that in those with normal DRE findings, the PPV was 2.1%, 7.0%, and 28.1% for serum PSA levels of <4 ng/mL, 4–10 ng/mL, and > 10 ng/mL, respectively. On the other hand, in the same study population, they also found that when the DRE findings suggested cancer the PPV for serum PSA increased to 11.7%, 42.6%, and 76.2% at the respective levels noted above. As such, TRUS features of cancer are associated strongly with an increase in PSA and once PSA levels are high, the usefulness of ultrasonogpaphy is reduced. On the other hand, the combination of DRE and TRUS increases the PPV for PSA, i.e., the highest (77%) suggesting that PSA (+) with TRUS (+) and a DRE (+) usually indicate Pca pathology. The TRUS findings should, therefore, only be interpreted in the context of PSA. Our study suggests that TRUS and DRE findings are only relevant if PSA is elevated. The first step in screening should, therefore, be PSA estimation followed by TRUS if the PSA is raised. However, since the clinical examination is always performed first, patients with normal PSA and DRE (+) should also be biopsied. We recommend routine biopsy in those patients with either elevated PSA or DRE (+), but not in those with TRUS (+) findings alone. Table 1 The relationship between prostate cancer diagnosis and different prostate-specific antigen values in Arab men. PSA (ng/mL) No. of patients No. with prostate cancer % with prostate cancer < 10 113 20 17% > 10 to < 50 168 54 32% >50 48 35 72% Total 329 109 33.1% Table 2 Results of binomial logistic regression analysis with digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) as independent variables and prostate cancinoma outcome as a dependent variable. Variables in the equation Sig. Exp (B) 95% confidence interval for exp (b) Lower Upper PSA 10 FOC .009 2.093 1.202 3.646 DRE .000 3.437 1.941 6.087 PSA 10 .010 2.210 1.214 4.026 Constant .000 .114 PSA 20 FOC .017 1.983 1.132 3.473 DRE .000 3.267 1.831 5.831 PSA 10 .000 2.654 1.568 4.492 Constant .000 .144 PSA 30 FOC .050 1.757 1.001 3.085 DRE .000 3.288 1.846 5.859 PSA 10 .000 2.875 1.609 5.135 Constant .000 .169 PSA 40 FOC .033 1.835 1.051 3.205 DRE .000 3.156 1.771 5.625 PSA 10 .004 2.577 1.361 4.881 Constant .000 .182 PSA 50 FOC .048 1.762 1.005 3.089 DRE .000 3.210 1.802 5.718 PSA10 .001 3.249 1.626 6.488 Constant .000 .184 DRE: (Firmness or nodule on rectal examination), FOC: (Focal lesion on U/S), PSA: 10–50 ng/mL (PSA < or > 10–50 ng/mL) Table 3 Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen. DRE and TRUS (positive) (74) DRE alone (positive) (16) TRUS alone (positive) (90) DRE and TRUS (negative) (149) PSA Status + − + − + − + − Total Cancer 46 3 5 2 20 8 18 7 109 Not Cancer 14 11 6 3 34 28 75 49 220 60 14 11 5 54 36 93 56 Sensitivity 94 100 71 72 Specificity 44 45.5 45 39.5 Positive Predictive Value 77 45.5 37 19 Negative Predictive Value 79 100 78 87.5 PSA (+) = Serum PSA > 10 ngm/ml, PSA (−) = Serum PSA < 10 ngm/ml TRUS (+) = Focal lesion suspicious of cancer on transrectal Ultrasound TRUS (−) = No focal lesion seen on transrectal Ultrasound ==== Refs REFERENCES 1 Catalona WJ Smith DS Ratliff TL Measurement of prostate-specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer N Engl J Med 1991 324 17 1156 61 1707140 2 Mettlin C Lee F Drago J Murphy GP The American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project Findings on the detection of early prostate cancer in 2425 men Cancer 1991 67 12 2949 58 1710531 3 Lee F Torp-Pedersen S Littrup PJ Hypoechoic lesions of the prostate: clinical relevance of tumor size, digital rectal examination, and prostate-specific antigen Radiology 1989 170 1 Pt 1 29 32 2462262 4 Cooner WH Prostate-specific antigen coordinated with digital rectal examination and transrectal ultrasonography in the detection of prostate cancer World J Urol 1993 11 4 214 7 7508786 5 Lee F Torp-Pedersen S Meiselman L Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of local disease after 1125 seed implantation for prostate cancer Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1988 15 6 1453 9 2461921 6 Crawford ED Leewansangtong S Goktas S Holthaus K Baier M Efficiency of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination in screening, using 4.0 ng/ml and age-specific reference range as a cutoff for abnormal values Prostate 1999 38 4 296 302 10075009 7 Catalona WJ Richie JP Ahmann FR Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men J Urol 1994 151 5 1283 90 7512659 8 Latchamsetty KC Kim J Porter CR Prostate specific antigen remains an independent predictor of cancer at prostate biopsy in black american men but not in white men: results from a consecutive series of 914 men J Urol 2006 175 3 Pt 1 913 7 discussion 917 16469578 9 Kehinde EO Sheikh M Mojimoniyi OA High serum prostate-specific antigen levels in the absence of prostate cancer in Middle-Eastern men: the clinician’s dilemma BJU Int 2003 91 7 618 22 12699471 10 Benson MC Whang IS Olsson CA McMahon DJ Cooner WH The use of prostate specific antigen density to enhance the predictive value of intermediate levels of serum prostate specific antigen J Urol 1992 147 3 Pt 2 817 21 1371555 11 Carter HB Hamper UM Sheth S Sanders RC Epstein JI Walsh PC Evaluation of transrectal ultrasound in the early detection of prostate cancer J Urol 1989 142 4 1008 10 2677409 12 Oesterling JE Jacobsen SJ Chute CG Serum prostate-specific antigen in a community-based population of healthy men. Establishment of age-specific reference ranges JAMA 1993 270 7 860 4 7688054 13 Ciatto S Bonardi R Mazzotta A Comparing two modalities of screening for prostate cancer: digital rectal examination + transrectal ultrasonography vs. prostate-specific antigen Tumori 1995 81 4 225 9 8540115 14 Babaian RJ Dinney CP Ramirez EI Evans RB Diagnostic testing for prostate cancer detection: less is best Urology 1993 41 5 421 5 7683834 15 Cooner WH Mosley BR Rutherford CL Jr Clinical application of transrectal ultrasonography and prostate specific antigen in the search for prostate cancer J Urol 1988 139 4 758 61 2451035 16 Cooner WH Mosley BR Rutherford CL Jr Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen J Urol 1990 143 6 1146 52 discussion 1152–4 1692885 17 Terris MK Freiha FS McNeal JE Stamey TA Efficacy of transrectal ultrasound for identification of clinically undetected prostate cancer J Urol 1991 146 1 78 83 discussion 83–4 1711589 18 Guthman DA Wilson TM Blute ML Bergstralh EJ Zincke H Oesterling JE Biopsy-proved prostate cancer in 100 consecutive men with benign digital rectal examination and elevated serum prostate-specific antigen level. Prevalence and pathologic characteristics Urology 1993 42 2 150 4 7690170 19 Coplen DE Andriole GL Yuan JJ Catalona WJ The ability of systematic transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy to detect prostate cancer in men with the clinical diagnosis of benign prostatic hyperplasia J Urol 1991 146 1 75 7 1711588 20 Shapiro A Lebensart PD Pode D Bloom RA The clinical utility of transrectal ultrasound and digital rectal examination in the diagnosis of prostate cancer Br J Radiol 1994 67 799 668 71 8062008 21 Littrup PJ Kane RA Mettlin CJ Cost-effective prostate cancer detection. Reduction of low-yield biopsies Investigators of the American Cancer Society National Prostate Cancer Detection Project Cancer 1994 74 12 3146 58 7526969 22 Sheikh M Al-Saeed O Kehinde EO Sinan T Anim JT Ali Y Utility of Volume Adjusted Prostate Specific Antigen Density in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer in Arab Men Int J Urol Nephro 2005 23 Gilbertsen VA Cancer of the prostate gland. Results of early diagnosis and therapy undertaken for cure of the disease JAMA 1971 215 1 81 4 5107353 24 Chodak GW Schoenberg HW Early detection of prostate cancer by routine screening JAMA 1984 252 23 3261 4 6512929 25 Wanatabe h Transrectal sonography; a personal review and recent advances Scan J Nephrol (Suppl) 1991 137 75 83 26 Lee F Littrup PJ Torp-Pedersen ST Prostate cancer comparison of transrectal US and digital rectal examination for screening Radiology 1988 168 2 389 94 3293108 27 Egawa S Liu XX Kuwao S Role of prostate specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography, and digital rectal examination in the search for clinical prostate cancer Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 1993 84 7 1236 43 7689122 28 Scardino PT Transrectal ultrasound in management of prostate cancer Urology 1989 33 6 Suppl 27 31 29 Egawa S Suyama K Matsumoto K Kuwao S Baba S Prospective evaluation of prostate cancer detection by prostate specific antigen related parameters: comparison in serum and plasma samples J Urol 2002 167 1 97 102 11743284 30 Gohji K Okamoto M Morisue K Fujii A Usefulness of digital rectal examination, serum prostate-specific antigen, transrectal ultrasonography and systematic prostate biopsy for the detection of organ-confined prostate cancer Int J Urol 1995 2 2 116 20 7553283 31 Egawa S Wheeler TM Greene DR Scardino PT Detection of residual prostate cancer after radiotherapy by sonographically guided needle biopsy Urology 1992 39 4 358 63 1373015 32 Philip J Dutta Roy S Ballal M Foster CS Javle P Is a digital rectal examination necessary in the diagnosis and clinical staging of early prostate cancer? BJU Int 2005 95 7 969 71 15839915 33 Rifkin MD Choi H Implications of small, peripheral hypoechoic lesions in endorectal US of the prostate Radiology 1988 166 3 619 22 3277237 34 Muldoon L Resnick MI Results of ultrasonography of the prostate Urol Clin North Am 1989 16 4 693 702 2683299 35 Wolf JS Jr Shinohara K Narayan P Staging of prostate cancer. Accuracy of transrectal ultrasound enhanced by prostate-specific antigen Br J Urol 1992 70 5 534 41 1281724 36 Lee F Torp-Pedersen ST Siders DB Littrup PJ McLeary RD Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis and staging of prostatic carcinoma Radiology 1989 170 3 Pt 1 609 15 2644656 37 Brawer MK Chetner MP Beatie J Buchner DM Vessella RL Lange PH Screening for prostatic carcinoma with prostate specific antigen J Urol 1992 147 3 Pt 2 841 5 1371559 38 Hudson MA Bahnson RR Catalona WJ Clinical use of prostate specific antigen in patients with prostate cancer J Urol 1989 142 4 1011 7 2477559 39 Schroder FH van der Cruijsen-Koeter I de Koning HJ Vis AN Hoedemaeker RF Kranse R Prostate cancer detection at low prostate specific antigen J Urol 2000 163 3 806 12 10687982