[Comparison between 2 techniques of screening for prostatic carcinoma. Rectal exploration and transrectal...

We report the results of two pilot studies for the early detection of prostatic carcinoma in resident men aged 60-75 years, using combined digital rectal examination (DRE) and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) versus prostate-specific antigen (PSA; cutoff: 4 ng/ml) as screening tests. Both screening protocols exhibited high cancer detection rates (DRE + TRUS = 1.82%, PSA = 1.67%), with a high prevalence/incidence ratio (observed/expected ratio: DRE-TRUS = 13.8:1, PSA = 11.3:1) and a diagnostic anticipation of about 6-7 years. Stage (DRE + TRUS: A = 0%, B = 69%, C-D = 31%; PSA:A = 14%, B = 77%, C-D = 9%) and grading distribution (no case with Gleason score < 5) suggests that most screen-detected cancers were clinically assessable but the extent of overdiagnosis of latent carcinomas cannot be estimated. Both screening protocols proved to be cost-effective (biopsy rate: DRE + TRUS = 2.7%, PSA = 2.8%; cost per screened subject: DRE + TRUS = L. 33,750, PSA = L. 30,400; cost per cancer detected: DRE + TRUS = L. 1,854,000, PSA = L. 1,817,500) but screening by PSA was much better accepted (attendance rate: DRE + TRUS = 33.7%, PSA = 66.9%), which makes it the screening test of choice for controlled studies on screening efficacy. This study allows no definitive conclusions to be drawn on screening efficacy but confirms only that screening is feasible at a reasonable cost and yields high diagnostic anticipation. Whether this benefits the screened population is currently debated and needs to be confirmed by controlled studies. Screening may have upsetting negative outcomes such as overdiagnosis, overtreatment, increased treatment-related mortality rates and worsened quality of life, and there is no evidence supporting the recommendation of screening as a routine practice.