Atypical small acinar proliferation and its significance in pathological reports in modern urological times

doi:10.1016/j.ajur.2021.04.008

Asian Journal of Urology, 2022, 9 (1): 12-17 doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2021.04.008

Reviews

Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search

Atypical small acinar proliferation and its significance in pathological reports in modern urological times

Georgios Tsampoukas^a,b,*(

),Victor Manolas^a,Dominic Brown^a,c,Athanasios Dellis^b,d,Konstantinos Deliveliotis^e,Mohamad Moussa^f,Athanasios Papatsoris^b,e

^a Department of Urology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Harlow, UK
^b U-merge Ltd. (Urology for Emerging Countries), London, UK
^c Department of Urology, Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford, UK
^d Department of Urology and General Surgery, Areteion Hospital, Athens, Greece
^e 2nd Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
^f Chairman of Surgery & Urology Department, Lebanese University & Zahraa Hospital, University Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon

Abstract
Related Citation (15)

Download:

HTML

PDF (338KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract

Atypical small acinar proliferation is a histopathological diagnosis of unspecified importance in prostate needle-biopsy reports, suggestive but not definitive for cancer. The terminology corresponds to some uncertainty in the biopsy report, as the finding might represent an underlying non-cancerous pathology mimicking cancer or an under-sampled prostate cancer site. Therefore, traditional practice favors an immediate repeat biopsy. However, in modern urological times, the need of urgent repeat biopsy is being challenged by some authors as in the majority of cases, the grade of cancer found in subsequent biopsy is reported to be low or the disease to be non-significant. On the other hand, high risk disease cannot be excluded, whereas no clinical or pathological factors can predict the final outcome. In this review, we discuss the significance of the diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation in the biopsy report, commenting on its importance in modern urological practice.

Key words： Prostate cancer Repeat biopsy Significant cancer Grade Atypical small cell proliferation Lesion suspicious for cancer

Received: 01 February 2020 Available online: 20 January 2022

Corresponding Authors: Georgios Tsampoukas E-mail: tsampoukasg@gmail.com

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	Articles by authors
	Georgios Tsampoukas
	Victor Manolas
	Dominic Brown
	Athanasios Dellis
	Konstantinos Deliveliotis
	Mohamad Moussa
	Athanasios Papatsoris

TRENDMD:

Cite this article:

Georgios Tsampoukas,Victor Manolas,Dominic Brown, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation and its significance in pathological reports in modern urological times[J]. Asian Journal of Urology, 2022, 9(1): 12-17.

URL:

http://www.ajurology.com/EN/10.1016/j.ajur.2021.04.008 OR http://www.ajurology.com/EN/Y2022/V9/I1/12

[1]	Chrisofos M, Papatsoris AG, Lazaris A, Deliveliotis C. Precursor lesions of prostate cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2007; 44:243e70.
[2]	Yazici S, Kiziloz H, Bozaci AC, Baydar DE, Del Biondo D, Ozen H. Predictors of prostate cancer in ultrasound-guided transperineal saturation biopsy in Turkish men with multiple prior negative biopsies. Urologia 2016; 83:71e6.
[3]	Brausi M, Castagnetti G, Dotti A, De Luca Olmi RG, Olmi R, Cesinaro AM. Immediate radical prostatectomy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. Over treatment? J Urol 2004; 172:906e9.
[4]	Mallén E, Gil P, Sancho C, Jesús Gil M, Allepuz C, Borque A, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation: Review of a series of 64 patients. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2006; 40:272e5.
[5]	Moore CK, Karikehalli S, Nazeer T, Fisher HAG, Kaufman RPJ, Mian BM. Prognostic significance of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation in the contemporary era. J Urol 2005; 173:70e2.
[6]	Amin M, Boccon-Gibod L, Egevad L, Epstein JI, Humphrey PA, Mikuz G, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors and reporting of prostate carcinoma in prostate needle biopsy specimens. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 2005; 216:20e33.
[7]	Iczkowski KA, Chen HM, Yang XJ, Beach RA. Prostate cancer diagnosed after initial biopsy with atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy is similar to cancer found on initial biopsy. Urology 2002; 60:851e4.
[8]	Kowalewski A, Szylberg L, Skorczewska A, Marszalek A. Diagnostic difficulties with atrophy, atypical adenomatous hyperplasia, and atypical small acinar proliferation: A systematic review of current literature. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2016; 14:361e5.
[9]	Flury SC, Galgano MT, Mills SE, Smolkin ME, Theodorescu D. Atypical small acinar proliferation: Biopsy artefact or distinct pathological entity? BJU Int 2007; 99:780e5.
[10]	Leone A, Gershman B, Rotker K, Butler C, Fantasia J, Miller A, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP): Is a repeat biopsy necessary ASAP? A multi-institutional review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19:68e71.
[11]	Pietzak 3rd EJ, Kabarriti AE, Mucksavage P, Bavaria T, Van Arsdalen K, Malkowicz SB, et al. The presence of high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypia on prostate biopsy does not adversely affect prostatectomy outcomes for patients otherwise eligible for active surveillance. Urology 2014; 84:1442e7.
[12]	Srirangam V, Rai BP, Abroaf A, Agarwal S, Tadtayev S, Foley C, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia: Should we be concerned? An observational cohort study with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. Curr Urol 2017; 10:199e205.
[13]	Sklinda K, Mruk B, Walecki J. Active surveillance of prostate cancer using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: A review of the current role and future perspectives. Med Sci Monit 2020; 26:e920252. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.920252.
[14]	Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2019; 53:68e80.
[15]	Ericson KJ, Wenger HC, Rosen AM, Kiriluk KJ, Gerber GS, Paner GP, et al. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol 2017; 24:8714e20.
[16]	Samaratunga H, Gardiner RA, Yaxley J, Brown I. Atypical prostatic glandular proliferations on needle biopsy: Diagnostic implications, use of immunohistochemistry, and clinical significance. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006; 28:104e10.
[17]	Yang C, Humphrey PA. False-negative histopathologic diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020; 144:326e34.
[18]	Arista-Nasr J, Trolle-Silva A, Aguilar-Ayala E, Martinez- Benitez B. Seminal epithelium in prostate biopsy can mimic malignant and premalignant prostatic lesions. Actas Urol Esp 2016; 40:17e22.
[19]	Iczkowski KA, MacLennan GT, Bostwick DG. Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsies: Clinical significance in 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21:1489e95.
[20]	Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volume prostatic adenocarcinoma: Analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:98e107.
[21]	Sanguedolce F, Cormio A, Musci G, Troiano F, Carrieri G, Bufo P, et al. Typing the atypical: Diagnostic issues and predictive markers in suspicious prostate lesions. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2017; 54:309e25.
[22]	Adamczyk P, Wolski Z, Butkiewicz R, Nussbeutel J, Drewa T. Significance of atypical small acinar proliferation and extensive high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasm in clinical practice. Cent Eur J Urol 2014; 67:136e41.
[23]	Iczkowski KA, Bassler TJ, Schwob VS, Bassler IC, Kunnel BS, Orozco RE, et al. Diagnosis of “suspicious for malignancy” in prostate biopsies: Predictive value for cancer. Urology 1998; 51:748e9.
[24]	Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, Carroll PR. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol 2001; 165:1409e14.
[25]	Cheville JC, Reznicek MJ, Bostwick DG. The focus of “atypical glands, suspicious for malignancy” in prostatic needle biopsy specimens: Incidence, histologic features, and clinical followup of cases diagnosed in a community practice. Am J Clin Pathol 1997; 108:633e40.
[26]	Kim TS, Ko KJ, Shin SJ, Ryoo HS, Song W, Sung HH, et al. Multiple cores of high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and any core of atypia on first biopsy are significant predictor for cancer detection at a repeat biopsy. Korean J Urol 2015; 56:796e802.
[27]	Leone L, Lacetera V, Montironi R, Cantoro U, Conti A, Sbrollini G, et al. Biopsy follow-up in patients with isolated atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) in prostate biopsy. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2014; 86:332e5.
[28]	Abouassaly R, Tan N, Moussa A, Jones JS. Risk of prostate cancer after diagnosis of atypical glands suspicious for carcinoma on saturation and traditional biopsies. J Urol 2008; 180:911e4.
[29]	Ryu JH, Kim YB, Lee JK, Kim YJ, Jung TY. Predictive factors of prostate cancer at repeat biopsy in patients with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation of the prostate. Korean J Urol 2010; 51:752e6.
[30]	Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Freschi M, Briganti A, Fantini GV, Bertini R, et al. Predictors of prostate cancer after initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation at 10 to 12 core biopsies. Urology 2005; 66:1043e7.
[31]	Merrick GS, Galbreath RW, Bennett A, Butler WM, Amamovich E. Incidence, grade and distribution of prostate cancer following transperineal template-guided mapping biopsy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. World J Urol 2017; 35:1009e13.
[32]	Amin MM, Jeyaganth S, Fahmy N, Be′gin L, Aronson S, Jacobson S, et al. Subsequent prostate cancer detection in patients with prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical small acinar proliferation. Can Urol Assoc J 2007; 1:245e9.
[33]	Merrimen JL, Jones G, Hussein SAB, Leung CS, Kapusta LR, Srigley JR. A model to predict prostate cancer after atypical findings in initial prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 2011; 185:1240e5.
[34]	Aganovic D, Prcic A, Kulovac B, Hadziosmanovic O. Prostate cancer detection rate and the importance of premalignant lesion in rebiopsy. Med Arh 2011; 65:109e12.
[35]	Schlesinger C, Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: Predictive value for cancer in current practice. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:1201e7.
[36]	Burks FN, Hu JC, Telang D, Liu A, Hawken S, Montgomery Z, et al. Repeat prostate biopsy practice patterns in a statewide quality improvement collaborative. J Urol 2017; 198:322e8.
[37]	Leone A, Rotker K, Butler C, Mega A, Li J, Amin A, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation: Repeat biopsy and detection of high grade prostate cancer. Prostate Cancer 2015; 2015:810159. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/810159.
[38]	Warlick C, Feia K, Tomasini J, Iwamoto C, Lindgren B, Risk M. Rate of Gleason 7 or higher prostate cancer on repeat biopsy after a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18:255e9.
[39]	Dorin RP, Wiener S, Harris CD, Wagner JR. Prostate atypia: Does repeat biopsy detect clinically significant prostate cancer? Prostate 2015; 75:673e8.
[40]	Scott Libby R, Kramer JJ, Tue Nguyen HM, Feibus A, Thomas R, Silberstein JL, et al. Racial variation in the outcome of subsequent prostate biopsies in men with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Clin Genitourin Cancer 2017; 15:e995e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2017.04.018.
[41]	Wiener S, Haddock P, Cusano J, Staff I, McLaughlin T, Wagner J. Incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer after a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation, highgrade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or benign tissue. Urology 2017; 110:161e5.
[42]	Cool DW, Romagnoli C, Izawa JI, Chin J, Gardi L, Tessier D, et al. Comparison of prostate MRI-3D transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for first-time and repeat biopsy patients with previous atypical small acinar proliferation. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10:342e8.
[43]	Raskolnikov D, George AK, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, Siddiqui MM, Shakir NA, et al. The role of magnetic resonance image guided prostate biopsy in stratifying men for risk of extracapsular extension at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2015; 194:105e11.
[44]	Martorana E, Micali S, Ghaith A, Reggiani Bonetti L, Sighinolfi MC, Galli R, et al. Advantages of single-puncture transperineal saturation biopsy of prostate: Analysis of outcomes in 125 patients using our scheme. Int Urol Nephrol 2015; 47:735e41.
[45]	Nakai Y, Tanaka N, Miyake M, Hori S, Tatsumi Y, Morizawa Y, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation and two or more cores of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia on a previous prostate biopsy are significant predictors of cancer during a transperineal template-guided saturation biopsy aimed at sampling one core for each 1 mL of prostate volume. Res Rep Urol 2017; 9:187e93.
[46]	Iczkowski KA, Cheng L, Qian J, Shanks J, Gadaleanu V, Bostwick DG, et al. ASAP is a valid diagnosis. Atypical small acinar proliferation. Hum Pathol 1999; 30:1403e4.
[47]	Borboroglu PG, Sur RL, Roberts JL, Amling CL. Repeat biopsy strategy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation or high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia on initial prostate needle biopsy. J Urol 2001; 166:866e70.
[48]	Aglamis E, Kocaarslan R, Yucetas U, Toktas G, Ceylan C, Doluoglu OG, et al. How many cores should be taken in a repeat biopsy on patients in whom atypical small acinar proliferation has been identified in an initial transrectal prostate biopsy? Int Braz J Urol 2014; 40:605e12.
[49]	Ynalvez LA, Kosarek CD, Kerr PS, Mahmoud AM, Eyzaguirre EJ, Orihuela E, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation at index prostate biopsy: Rethinking the re-biopsy paradigm. Int Urol Nephrol 2018; 50:1e6.
[50]	Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Briers E, Cumberbatch MG, De Santis M, et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: Screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2017; 71:618e29.
[51]	Moldovan PC, Van den Broeck T, Sylvester R, Marconi L, Bellmunt J, van den Bergh RCN, et al. What is the negative predictive value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in excluding prostate cancer at biopsy? A systematic review and meta-analysis fromthe European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer guidelines panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72:250e66.
[52]	Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC, Gabe R, Kaplan R, Parmar MK, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): A paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 2017; 389:815e22.
[53]	Salvaggio G, Calamia M, Purpura P, Bartolotta Tommaso V, Picone D, Dispensa N, et al. Role of apparent diffusion coefficient values in prostate diseases characterization on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Minerva Urol Nefrol 2019; 71:154e60.
[54]	Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, Romagnoli D, Diazzi D, Giunchi F, et al. The biopsy Gleason score 3t4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3t3: Looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18:270e5.