χ2 Analysis of the responses of the DATTA panelists determined that the frequencies of responses (established, investigational, indeterminate, or unacceptable) differ significantly from those expected due to chance alone (P<.001). Construction of the 95% confidence interval comparing the established category vs the combination of the investigational, unacceptable, and indeterminate categories showed a significant difference, indicating that the DATTA panelists considered the technology to be established as safe for the specified indications. Three panelists offered no opinion on this technology.
χ2 Analysis of the responses of the DATTA panelists determined that the frequencies of responses (established, investigational, indeterminate, or unacceptable) differ significantly from those expected due to chance alone for screening (P<.05) and for staging (P<.025). Construction of the 95% confidence interval comparing the established category vs the combination of the investigational, unacceptable, and indeterminate categories showed a significant difference only on the screening question, indicating that the DATTA panelists did not believe that effectiveness had been established. Three panelists offered no opinion on this technology.
The management of clinically localized prostate cancer, CONSENSUS CONFERENCE. JAMA 1987;;258:2727-2730.
Boxer RJ: Adenocarcinoma of the prostate gland. Urol Survey 1977;;27:75-94.
Drago JR: Diagnostic techniques in prostatic cancer. Postgrad Med 1986;;80:214-224.
Berry SJ, Coffey DS, Walsh PC, et al: The development of human benign prostatic hyperplasia with age. J Urol 1984;;132:474-479.
Murphy GP, Natarajan N, Pontes JE, et al: The national survey of prostate cancer in the United States by the American College of Surgeons. J Urol 1982;;127:928-934.
Rifkin MD: Ultrasonography of the lower genitourinary tract. Urol Clin North Am 1985;;12:645-656.
Rifkin MD, Friedland GW, Shortliffe L: Prostatic evaluation by transrectal endosonography: Detection of carcinoma. Radiology 1986;;158:85-90.
Spirnak JP, Resnick MI: Ultrasound and the evaluation of the prostate , in deVere White RW, Palmer JM (eds): New Techniques in Urology . Mount Kisco, NY, Futura Publishing Co Inc, 1987;, pp 251-268.
Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, et al: Transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: Location, echogenicity, histopathology, and staging. Prostate 1985;;7:117-129.
Dahnert WF, Hamper UM, Eggleston JC, et al: Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography with histopathologic correlation: The echopenic appearance of early carcinoma. Radiology 1986;;158:97-102.
Lee F, Gray JM, McLeary RD, et al: Prostatic evaluation by transrectal sonography: Criteria for diagnosis of early carcinoma. Radiology 1986;;158:91-95.
Choyke PL, Thickman D, Kressel HY, et al: Controversies in the radiologic diagnosis of pelvic malignancies. Radiol Clin North Am 1985;;23:531-549.
Burks DD, Drolshagen LF, Fleischer AC, et al: Transrectal sonography of benign and malignant prostatic lesions. Am J Radiol 1986;;146:1187-1191.
Kadow C, Gingell JC, Penry JB: Prostatic ultrasonography: A useful technique? Br J Urol 1985;;57:440-443.
Chancellor MB, McHugh TA, Dorr RP, et al: Transrectal prostate ultrasonography before transurethral prostatectomy: Its value in screening for stage A cancer, abstracted. J Urol 1987;;137:241A.
Rosenberg S, Sogani PC, Parmer EA, et al: Screening of ambulatory patients for prostate cancer by transrectal ultrasonography, abstracted. J Urol 1987;;137:241A.
Fujino A, Scardino PT: Transrectal ultrasonography for prostatic cancer: Its value in staging and monitoring the response to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. J Urol 1985;;133:806-810.
Pontes JE, Eisenkraft S, Watanabe H, et al: Preoperative evaluation of localized prostatic carcinoma by transrectal ultrasonography. J Urol 1985;;134:289-291.