ArticleCurrent urology2017
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.
Article in Current urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atypical intraductal proliferation in prostate biopsy - a diagnostic grey zone with clinical implications.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- 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
- Diagnostic Accuracy of a MR Protocol Acquired with and without Endorectal Coil for Detection of Prostate Cancer: A Multicenter Study.Current urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAtypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) and high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (HGPIN) are considered precancerous. We aimed to measure the rate of repeat biopsy and adenocarcinoma in patients with ASAP and HGPIN and identify any clinico-pathologic parameters at diagnosis of ASAP/HGPIN that are predictive of adenocarcinoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients with a diagnosis of ASAP/HGPIN with no previous or concomitant cancer were identified. Prostate specific antigen (PSA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) changes were monitored. Re-biopsy was at clinician discretion.
resultsNineteen were diagnosed with ASAP and 17 with HGPIN. Seven with ASAP (37%) and 6 with HGPIN (35%) underwent re-biopsy. Three (16%) with ASAP and 5 with HGPIN (29%) were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma. The difference in cancer detection rates between ASAP and HGPIN was not significant (p = 0.35). Five (14%) in total required definitive therapy for adenocarcinoma. Twenty-three (64%) did not undergo repeat biopsy. Parameters at diagnosis of HGPIN and ASAP, including PSA, prostate volume and PSA density, were compared between the cancer and non-cancer cohorts with none found to be predictive of adenocarcinoma.
conclusionBy monitoring PSA and MRI changes, we managed to spare re-biopsy in two-thirds of patients. Further evaluation is necessary to characterize a surveillance protocol in these populations.
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.