Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Construct validity in a high-fidelity prostate exam simulator

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 15, pages 63–69 (2012)Cite this article

Abstract

Background:

All health care practitioners should be facile in the digital rectal exam (DRE) as it provides prostate, rectal and neurological information. The purpose of this study was first to justify our hypothesis that tissue elasticity is indicative of carcinomatous changes. Second, we employed urological surgeons to evaluate our prostate simulator in three ways: (1) authenticate that the elasticity of the simulated prostates accurately represents the range of normal prostate stiffness, (2) determine the range of nodule size reasonably palpable by DRE and (3) discern what degree of elasticity difference within the same prostate suggests malignancy.

Methods:

Institutional Review Board-approved materials characterization, human-subjects experiments, histopathology and chart abstraction of clinical history were performed. Material characterization of 21 ex-vivo prostatectomy specimens was evaluated using a custom-built, portable spherical indentation device while a novel prostate simulator was employed to measure human-subject perception of prostatic state.

Results:

From the materials characterization, the measurements of the 21 gross prostates and 40 cross-sections yielded 306 data points. Within the same prostate, cancer was always stiffer. Of the seven cases with an abnormal DRE, the DRE accurately identified adenocarcinoma in 85%. From the human-subjects experiments, the simulated prostates evaluated by urologists ranged in stiffness from 8.9 to 91 kPa, mimicking the range found on ex vivo analysis of 4.6–236.7 kPa. The urological surgeons determined the upper limit of stiffness palpated as realistic for a healthy prostate was 59.63 kPa while the lower limit of stiffness was 27.1 kPa. Nodule size less than 7.5 mm was felt to be too small to reasonably palpate.

Conclusions:

We found it is not the absolute elasticity of the nodule, but rather the relationship of the nodule with the background prostate elasticity that constitutes the critical tactile feedback. Prostate simulator training may lead to greater familiarity with pertinent diagnostic cues and diagnosis of prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith DS, Catalona WJ . Interexaminer variability of digital rectal examination in detecting prostate cancer. Urology 1995; 45: 70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Holmström B, Johansson M, Bergh A, Stenman UH, Hallmans G, Stattin P . Prostate specific antigen for early detection of prostate cancer: longitudinal study. BMJ 2009; 339: b3537.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Mazza E, Grau P, Hollenstein M, Bajka M . Constitutive modeling of human liver based on in vivo measurements. Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 2008; 11: 726.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nava A, Mazza E, Furrer M, Villiger P, Reinhart WH . In vivo mechanical characterization of human liver. Med Image Anal 2008; 12: 203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Krouskop TA, Wheeler TM, Kallel F, Garra BS, Hall T . Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under compression. Ultrason Imaging 1998; 20: 260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Frauscher F, Klauser A, Berger AP, Halpern EJ, Feuchtner G, Koppelstaetter F et al. The value of ultrasound (US) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Radiologe 2003; 43: 455.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Aigner F, Pallwein L, Junker D, Schäfer G, Mikuz G, Pedross F et al. Value of real-time elastography targeted biopsy for prostate cancer detection in men with prostate specific antigen 1.25 ng/ml or greater and 4.00 ng/ml or less. J Urol 2010; 184: 913.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. König K, Scheipers U, Pesavento A, Lorenz A, Ermert H, Senge T . Initial experiences with real-time elastography guided biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 2005; 174: 115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Popadiuk C, Pottle M, Curran V . Teaching digital rectal examinations to medical students: an evaluation study of teaching methods. Acad Med 2002; 77: 1140.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Low-Beer N, Kinnison T, Baillie S, Bello F, Kneebone R, Higham J . Hidden practice revealed: using task analysis and novel simulator design to evaluate the teaching of digital rectal examination. Am J Surg 2011; 201: 46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerling GJ, Rigsbee S, Moyer Childress R, Martin ML . The design and evaluation of a computerized and physical simulator for training clinical prostate exams. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 2009; 39: 388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carson WC, Gerling GJ, Krupski TL, Kowalik CG, Harper JC, Moskaluk CA . Material characterization of ex vivo prostate tissue via spherical indentation in the clinic. Med Eng Phys 2011; 33 (3): 302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gescheider GA . Psychophysics: The Fundamentals, edn 3. Lawrence Erbaum Associates, Inc: Mahwah, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baumgart LA, Gerling GJ, Bass EJ . Characterizing the range of simulated prostate abnormalities palpable by digital rectal examination. Cancer Epidemiol 2010; 34 (1): 79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosen KR, McBride JM, Drake RL . The use of simulation in medical education to enhance students′ understanding of basic sciences. Med Teach 2009; 31: 842.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Scerbo MW, Bliss JP, Schmidt EA, Thompson SN . The efficacy of a medical virtual reality simulator for training phlebotomy. Hum Factors 2006; 48: 72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb III RL, Buys SS, Chia D, Church TR et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1310.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (Grant Number W81XWH-08–1–005). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding sponsor.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    C G Kowalik

  2. Department of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    G J Gerling, A J Lee & W C Carson

  3. Department of Pathology and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    J Harper & C A Moskaluk

  4. Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

    T L Krupski

Authors
  1. C G Kowalik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G J Gerling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A J Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W C Carson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J Harper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C A Moskaluk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T L Krupski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T L Krupski.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kowalik, C., Gerling, G., Lee, A. et al. Construct validity in a high-fidelity prostate exam simulator. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 15, 63–69 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.38

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2011.38

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links