Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,592

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Catalona, William J., Richie, Jerome P., Ahmann, Frederick R., Hudson, M’Liss A., Scardino, Peter T., Flanigan, Robert C., Dekernion, Jean B., Ratliff, Timothy L., Kavoussi, Louis R., Dalkin, Bruce L., Waters, W. Bedford, Macfarlane, Michael T., Southwick, Paula C.·1994·Journal of Urology

Abstract

To compare the efficacy of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the early detection of prostate cancer, we conducted a prospective clinical trial at 6 university centers of 6,630 male volunteers 50 years old or older who underwent PSA determination (Hybritech Tandem-E or Tandem-R assays) and digital rectal examination. Quadrant biopsies were performed if the PSA level was greater than 4 micrograms/l or digital rectal examination was suspicious, even if transrectal ultrasonography revealed no areas suspicious for cancer. The results showed that 15% of the men had a PSA level of greater than 4 micrograms/l, 15% had a suspicious digital rectal examination and 26% had suspicious findings on either or both tests. Of 1,167 biopsies performed cancer was detected in 264. PSA detected significantly more tumors (82%, 216 of 264 cancers) than digital rectal examination (55%, 146 of 264, p = 0.001). The cancer detection rate was 3.2% for digital rectal examination, 4.6% for PSA and 5.8% for the 2 methods combined. Positive predictive value was 32% for PSA and 21% for digital rectal examination. Of 160 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and pathological staging 114 (71%) had organ confined cancer: PSA detected 85 (75%) and digital rectal examination detected 64 (56%, p = 0.003). Use of the 2 methods in combination increased detection of organ confined disease by 78% (50 of 64 cases) over digital rectal examination alone. If the performance of a biopsy would have required suspicious transrectal ultrasonography findings, nearly 40% of the tumors would have been missed. We conclude that the use of PSA in conjunction with digital rectal examination enhances early prostate cancer detection. Prostatic biopsy should be considered if either the PSA level is greater than 4 micrograms/l or digital rectal examination is suspicious for cancer, even in the absence of abnormal transrectal ultrasonography findings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35233-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,592

Metadata

Authors
Catalona, W. J., Richie, J. P., Ahmann, F. R., Hudson, M. A., Scardino, P. T., Flanigan, R. C., Dekernion, J. B., Ratliff, T. L., Kavoussi, L. R., Dalkin, B. L., Waters, W. B., Macfarlane, M. T., & Southwick, P. C.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
1994-05
Volume
151
Issue
5
Pages
1283-1290
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2209826608
Cited by
1,592
References
1
FWCI
85.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: 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. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35233-3
The paper
Catalona, W. J., Richie, J. P., Ahmann, F. R., Hudson, M. A., Scardino, P. T., Flanigan, R. C., Dekernion, J. B., Ratliff, T. L., Kavoussi, L. R., Dalkin, B. L., Waters, W. B., Macfarlane, M. T., & Southwick, P. C. (1994). 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. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)35233-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.