Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41203847›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2026

Atypical intraductal proliferation in prostate biopsy - a diagnostic grey zone with clinical implications.

Rui M Bernardino, João Lobo, Jihad Kaouk, Theodorus van der Kwast, Susan Prendeville, Fabio Zattoni, Lorenzo Bianchi, Alberto Martini, Pawel Rajwa, Veeru Kasivisvanathan and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Rui M BernardinoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Division of Urology University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ruimmbernardino@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8076-4550
João LoboDepartment of Pathology and Cancer Biology and Epigenetics Group, Research Center of IPO Porto CI-IPOP, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto IPO Porto/Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center Raquel Seruca, Porto, Portugal.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6829-1391
Jihad KaoukGlickman Urological & Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-6069
Theodorus van der KwastLaboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8640-5786
Susan PrendevilleLaboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Fabio ZattoniUrologic Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Padua, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4178-373X
Lorenzo BianchiDivision of Urology, Istituto Di Ricovero E Cure a Carattere Scientifico (IRCCS), Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7321-1536
Alberto MartiniDepartment of Urology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1272-7154
Pawel RajwaDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4073-6584
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0832-382X
Giancarlo MarraDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin and Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy.
Neil FleshnerPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre, Division of Urology University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Young Academic Urologists Working Group Prostate Cancer Board

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Atypical intraductal proliferation (AIP) is considered a borderline lesion, characterized by architectural complexity and cytological atypia greater than that seen in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, but insufficient to fulfil the diagnostic criteria for intraductal carcinoma (IDC). Consequently, AIP remains diagnostically challenging, and the clinical significance of this lesion is still uncertain. Emerging evidence suggests that AIP in prostate biopsy specimens is a strong predictor of unsampled IDC and other adverse pathological features, warranting reconsideration of the AIP role in prostate cancer risk stratification. Results from prospective and molecular studies indicate that AIP frequently coexists with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and shares molecular alterations with IDC, such as PTEN loss and ERG overexpression, reinforcing AIP potential as a marker of occult aggressive disease. Considering the growing emphasis on precision diagnostics and active surveillance in prostate cancer management, understanding the implications of AIP is particularly relevant.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingProstateProstatic Intraepithelial NeoplasiaProstatic NeoplasmsBiopsyCell ProliferationHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID41203847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.