İlknur ÇALIK, Sevilay ÖZMEN, Mehmet Eşref KABALAR, Rabia DEMİRTAŞ, Yusuf CAN, Onur CEYLAN, Ahmet Erkan BİLİCİ, Şenay Erdoğan DURMUŞ, Hilal BALTA, Ali KURT

Relationship between prostate cancer and atypical small acinar proliferation

Aim: To investigate the prostatic adenocarcinoma (PA) detection rate in follow up biopsies with an initial diagnosis of atypical smallacinar proliferation (ASAP).Materials and Methods: In this study, the cases of ASAP diagnosis in prostate needle biopsy materials between January 2010and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed and the correlation between the results and the follow-up diagnoses of ASAPdiagnosedcases was investigated.Results: 62 cases with ASAP were included in the study and 21 (34%) of them were detected as PA after the follow-up diagnoses.Also ASAP and PA were detected at different localizations in 38% of the cases.Conclusion: We are on the opinion that it is important to increase the number of samples taken from other localizations as well asASAP diagnosed quadrants when taking follow-up biopsies.

PDF

___

1. Prostate Cancer Estimated Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide in 2012 (Internet web page). http:// gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/27-Prostatefact- sheet.pdf.
2. Iczkowski KA, Bassler TJ, Schwob VS, et al. Diagnosis of “suspicious for malignancy” in prostate biopsies: predictive value for cancer. Urology 1998;51:749-8.
3. Bostwick DG, Srigley J, Grignon D, et. al. Atypical adenomatous hyperplasia of the prostate: morphologic criteria for its distinction from well-differentiated carcinoma. Hum Pathol 1993;24:819-32.
4. Mancuso PA, Chabert C, Chin P, et al. Prostatecancer detection in men with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinarproliferation. BJU Int 2007;99:49-52.
5. Iczkowski KA, Bostwick DG. Criteria for biopsy diagnosis of minimal volumprostatic adenocarcinoma: analytic comparison with nondiagnostic but suspicious atypical small acinar proliferation. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:98-107.
6. Koca O, Calışkan S, Oztürk Mİ, et al. Significance of atypical small acinar proliferation and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in prostate biopsy. Korean J Urol 2011;52:736-40.
7. Saul Suster, Demos. Surgical Pathology Guides. Debra L. Zynger and Anil V. Parwani. In: Prostate Pathology: Premalignant Conditions and Prostate Carcinoma. New York: Bang Printing; 2015. pp. 67-162.
8. Borboroglu PG, Comer SW, Riffenburgh RH, et al. Extensive repeat transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy in patients with previous benign sextant biopsies. J Urol 2000;163:158-62.
9. 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;21:1489-95.
10. Ericson KJ, Wenger HC, Rosen AM, et al. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol 2017;24:8714-20.
11. Mistry K, Cable G. Meta-analysis of prostate-specific antigen and digital rectal examination as screening tests for prostate carcinoma. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003;16:95-101.
12. Törnblom M, Norming U, Adolfsson J, et al. Diagnostic value of percent free prostate-specific antigen: retrospective analysis of a population-based screening study with emphasis on men with PSA levels less than 3.0 ng/mL. Urology 1999;53:945-50.
13. Lodding P, Aus G, Bergdahl S, et al. Characteristics of screening detected prostate cancer in men 50 to 66 years old with 3 to 4 ng. /ml. Prostate specific antigen. J Urol 1998;159:899-903.
14. Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol 2001;165:1409-14.
15. Scattoni V, Roscigno M, Freschi M, et al. Predictors of prostate cancer after initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation at 10 to 12 core biopsies. Urology 2005;66:1043-7.
16. Chan TY, Epstein JI. Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer. Urology 1999;53:351-5.