ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2018
Atypical small acinar proliferation at index prostate biopsy: rethinking the re-biopsy paradigm.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ten-year follow-up of atypical small acinar hyperplasia cases diagnosed by initial prostate biopsy.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- A new ASAP Scoring System and Risk Table to predict second prostate biopsy outcomes.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2024Article
- Atypical small acinar proliferation and its significance in pathological reports in modern urological times.Asian journal of urology · 2022Review
- Implementation of repeat biopsy and detection of cancer after a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation of the prostate.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGuidelines for atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) diagnosed on prostate biopsy recommend repeat biopsy within 3-6 months after diagnosis. We sought to discern the rate of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer on repeat biopsy and predictors associated with progression. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent prostate biopsy at our institution from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2015. Gleason grade group (GGG) system and D'Amico stratification were used to report pathology and risk stratification, respectively. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 593 patients underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy, of which 27 (4.6%) had the diagnosis of ASAP. Of these, 11 (41%) had a repeat biopsy. Median time from diagnosis to repeat biopsy was 147 days (IQR 83.5-247.0). Distribution across the GGG system on repeat biopsy was as follows: 7 (63.6%) benign, 3 (27.3%) GG1, and 1 (9.1%) GG2. ASAP was not associated with subsequent diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.064-3.247, P = 0.432). There was no association between ASAP and high cancer risk (ASAP: β = - 0.12; P = 0.204).
conclusionsPatients diagnosed with ASAP managed according to guideline recommendations are more likely diagnosed with benign pathology and indolent prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. These findings support prior studies suggesting refinement of guidelines in regard to the appropriateness and timeliness of repeat biopsy among patients diagnosed with ASAP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.