Difference between revisions of "Atypical small acinar proliferation"

It is also known as '''suspicious for carcinoma'''.<ref name=THvdK>THvdK. 19 June 2010.</ref> ASAP is preferred as it does not contain the word ''carcinoma'' and, thus, cannot be misread as ''carcinoma'', i.e. positive for malignancy.

**One benchmark is < 3-5% of biopsies.<ref name=THvdK>THvdK. 19 June 2010.</ref>

*On a subsequent biopsy the chance of finding [[adenocarcinoma]] is approximately 40%; this is higher than if there is [[high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia]] (HGPIN).<ref name=pmid18568243>{{cite journal |author=Leite KR, Camara-Lopes LH, Cury J, Dall'oglio MF, Sañudo A, Srougi M |title=Prostate cancer detection at rebiopsy after an initial benign diagnosis: results using sextant extended prostate biopsy |journal=Clinics |volume=63 |issue=3 |pages=339–42 |year=2008 |month=June |pmid=18568243 |doi= |url=http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1807-59322008000300009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en}}</ref>

*ASAP is generally considered an indication for re-biopsy;<ref name=pmid16831049>{{cite journal |author=Bostwick DG, Meiers I |title=Atypical small acinar proliferation in the prostate: clinical significance in 2006 |journal=Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. |volume=130 |issue=7 |pages=952–7 |year=2006 |month=July |pmid=16831049 |doi= |url=http://journals.allenpress.com/jrnlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=0003-9985&volume=130&page=952}}</ref> in one study<ref name=pmid15223967>{{cite journal |author=Rubin MA, Bismar TA, Curtis S, Montie JE |title=Prostate needle biopsy reporting: how are the surgical members of the Society of Urologic Oncology using pathology reports to guide treatment of prostate cancer patients? |journal=Am. J. Surg. Pathol. |volume=28 |issue=7 |pages=946–52 |year=2004 |month=July |pmid=15223967 |doi= |url=}}</ref> 41/42 (~98%) of urologists considered it a sufficient reason to re-biopsy.