Characterizing the range of simulated prostate abnormalities palpable by digital rectal examination.

BACKGROUND Although the digital rectal exam (DRE) is a common method of screening for prostate cancer and other abnormalities, the limits of ability to perform this hands-on exam are unknown. Perceptible limits are a function of the size, depth, and hardness of abnormalities within a given prostate stiffness. METHODS To better understand the perceptible limits of the DRE, we conducted a psychophysical study with 18 participants using a custom-built apparatus to simulate prostate tissue and abnormalities of varying size, depth, and hardness. Utilizing a modified version of the psychophysical method of constant stimuli, we uncovered thresholds of absolute detection and variance in ability between examiners. RESULTS Within silicone-elastomers that mimic normal prostate tissue (21kPa), abnormalities of 4mm diameter (20mm(3) volume) and greater were consistently detectable (above 75% of the time) but only at a depth of 5mm. Abnormalities located in simulated tissue of greater stiffness (82kPa) had to be twice that volume (5mm diameter, 40mm(3) volume) to be detectable at the same rate. CONCLUSIONS This study finds that the size and depth of abnormalities most influence detectability, while the relative stiffness between abnormalities and substrate also affects detectability for some size/depth combinations. While limits identified here are obtained for idealized substrates, this work is useful for informing the development of training and allowing clinicians to set expectations on performance.

[1]  T M Morgan,et al.  Improving physicians' and nurses' clinical breast examination: a randomized controlled trial. , 1991, American journal of preventive medicine.

[2]  Gregory J. Gerling,et al.  Characterizing Finger Palpation in the Detection of Prostate Cancers and Abnormalities , 2008 .

[3]  C. K. Adams,et al.  Major stimulus dimensions determining detection of simulated breast lesions , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  G. Gescheider Psychophysics: The Fundamentals , 1997 .

[5]  N C Dolan,et al.  Do clinical breast examination skills improve during medical school? , 1998, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[6]  Gregory J. Gerling,et al.  The Design and Evaluation of a Computerized and Physical Simulator for Training Clinical Prostate Exams , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[7]  N C Dolan,et al.  Effect of breast‐tissue characteristics on the outcome of clinical breast examination training , 1996, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[8]  A.R. Skovoroda,et al.  Measuring the Elastic Modulus of Small Tissue Samples , 1998, Ultrasonic imaging.

[9]  Carolyn Jarvis,et al.  Physical Examination and Health Assessment , 1992 .

[10]  Gregory J Gerling,et al.  Effectiveness of a dynamic breast examination training model to improve clinical breast examination (CBE) skills. , 2003, Cancer detection and prevention.

[11]  J. Crowley,et al.  Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level < or =4.0 ng per milliliter. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  C. K. Adams,et al.  Improved detection of human breast lesions following experimental training , 1980, Cancer.

[13]  Jessica M. De Leon,et al.  Effect of clinical breast examination training on practitioner's perceived competence. , 2002, Cancer detection and prevention.

[14]  T. Krouskop,et al.  Elastic Moduli of Breast and Prostate Tissues under Compression , 1998, Ultrasonic imaging.

[15]  P. Humphrey,et al.  The early detection of prostate carcinoma with prostate specific antigen , 1997, Cancer.

[16]  Lump detection is enhanced in silicone breast models simulating postmenopausal breast tissue , 1996, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[17]  U. Güth,et al.  Tumor size and detection in breast cancer: Self-examination and clinical breast examination are at their limit. , 2008, Cancer detection and prevention.

[18]  S. Fletcher,et al.  Physicians' abilities to detect lumps in silicone breast models. , 1985, JAMA.

[19]  Carole Lannon,et al.  Improving clinical breast examination training in a medical school , 1993, Journal of General Internal Medicine.