Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026

A Cognitive Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound
Published on: March 21, 2025
The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate
C Gosselaar1, R Kranse, M J Roobol
1Department of Urology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. c.gosselaar@erasmusmc.nl
Background:
To analyze to what extent the percentage of suspicious digital rectal examination (DRE) findings vary between examiners and to what extent the percentage of prostate cancers (PCs) detected in men with these suspicious findings varies between examiners.
Methods:
In the first screening round of the European Randomized study of Screening for PC (ERSPC) Rotterdam, 7,280 men underwent a PSA-determination and DRE of whom 2,102 underwent prostate biopsy (biopsy indication PSA > or = 4.0 ng/ml and/or suspicious DRE and/or TRUS). Descriptive statistics of DRE-outcome per PSA-range were used to determine the observer variability of six examiners. Because this analysis did not correct properly for other predictors of a suspicious DRE (PSA-level, biopsy indication, TRUS-outcome, prostate volume and age), a logistic regression analysis controlling for these explanatory variables was performed as well.
Results:
In 2,102 men biopsied, 443 PCs were detected (PPV = 21%). For all PSA levels the percentage suspicious DRE varied between examiners from 4% to 28% and percentage PC detected in men with a suspicious DRE varied from 18% to 36%. Logistic regression analysis showed that three of six examiners considered DRE significantly more often abnormal than others (ORs 3.48, 2.80, 2.47, P < 0.001). For all examiners the odds to have PC was statistically significantly higher in case of a suspicious DRE (ORs 2.21-5.96, P < 0.05). This increased chance to find PC was not significantly observer-dependent.
Conclusions:
Three of six examiners considered DRE significantly more often suspicious than the others. However, under equal circumstances a suspicious DRE executed by each examiner increased the chance of the presence of PC similarly.
More Related Videos
05:32Povidone Iodine Rectal Preparation at Time of Prostate Needle Biopsy is a Simple and Reproducible Means to Reduce Risk of Procedural Infection
Published on: September 21, 2015
05:35Transperineal Prostate Biopsy Using a Cone-shaped Double-hole Method with Dual-plane Probe Guidance
Published on: June 6, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of the Rectum and Anus
Rectal Inspection
Begin by inspecting the perianal and anal areas for color, texture, rashes,...
Assessing Body Temperature - Rectal
Follow these steps for rectal temperature assessment:
Step 1: Perform hand hygiene and don clean gloves to prevent cross-infection.
Step 2: Position the patient in a side-lying position to better visualize the rectal...