Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Thomas A, Murray T, Thun M (2002) Cancer Statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 52:23–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 137:917–929

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 52:8–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Waye JD, Rex DK, Williams CB (eds) (2003) Colonoscopy: principles and practice. Blackwell Publishing, Malden (MA)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Google Scholar 

  7. Willms JL, Schneiderman H, Algranati PS 1994 Physical diagnosis: bedside evaluation of diagnosis and function. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 533–563

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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. Murthy GD, Byron DP, Pasquale D (2004) Underutilization of digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer. Arch Internal Med 164:313–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Bin Ge, M.D., M.A. and Gregory Petroski, Ph.D. for statistical support, Dr. Steve Weinstein of the department of urology for advice regarding study design, and Phyllis Stock for assistance in manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John B. Marshall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marshall, J.B. How Adequate is Digital Rectal Exam for Prostate Cancer Screening at Colonoscopy? Can Adequacy be Improved?. Dig Dis Sci 53, 719–722 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-007-9910-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-007-9910-5

Keywords

Navigation