Rate of clinically significant prostate cancer on repeat saturation biopsy after a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation

Abstract

Background:

Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) occurs in approximately 5% of prostate biopsies. Approximately 30%–40% of these patients may develop prostate cancer (PCa) within a 5-year period, often not clinically significant. Current guidelines recommend a repeat biopsy within 3–6 months after the initial diagnosis, but it seem not to be the best strategy.

Methods:

Objectives—evaluating the natural history of ASAP, stratifying the risk of csPCa after ASAP, identifying predictive factors of PCa after atypical diagnosis. Materials and methods—retrospective single-institutional study on patients undergoing prostate biopsy for suspicious PCa (2005–2016). We evaluated the incidence of overall PCa, intermediate-high risk of PCa and csPCa in case of ASAP, according to D’Amico classification and Epstein modified criteria.

Results:

Out of 4.567 patients undergoing prostate biopsy, ASAP was detected in 2.6% of cases. All patients with ASAP underwent repeat saturation biopsy within 6 months and PCa was diagnosed in 34.5%. According to D’Amico classification, 26%, 5.9%, and 2.5% had low, intermediate, and high-risk disease, respectively. According modified Epstein criteria, the incidence of csPCa was 12.6%. LRT showed that the overall probability to develop PCa doubled when PSA density (PSAD) moved from values lower than 0.13 ng/ml/cc to class 0.13–0.30 ng/ml/cc, and it tripled when PSAD was higher than 0.30 ng/ml/cc.

Conclusions:

The rate of csPCa in patients with an initial diagnosis of ASAP who had repeat biopsy was 12.6%. The overall PCa rate was 34.5%. Among patient undergoing RP, an upgrading from ncsPCa to csPCa was reported in 35% of cases. PSAD is the only predictive factor directly associated to the risk of developing PCa on repeat biopsy. These ﬁndings suggest that immediate repeat biopsy remains the correct strategy in absence of novel predictor factors and non-invasive diagnostic evaluations.

Keywords

Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP)repeat prostate biopsy clinically significant prostate cancer

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Scattoni

Roscigno

Freschi

, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP) on extended prostatic biopsies: predictive factors of cancer detection on repeat biopsies. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2005; 77: 31–36.

Kim

Yang

, et al. Prostate cancer detection rate of rebiopsy in patients with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation of the prostate. Korean J Urol 2009; 50: 237–240.

Iczkowski

Bassler

Schwob

, et al. Diagnosis of “suspicious for malignancy” in prostate biopsies: predictive value for cancer. Urology 1998; 51: 749–757.

Heidenreich

Bastian

Bellmunt

, et al. EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent-update 2013. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 124–137.

El-Hakim

Moussa

CUA guidelines on prostate biopsy methodology. Can Urol Assoc J 2010; 4: 89–94.

Tosoian

Mamawala

Epstein

, et al. Intermediate and longer-term outcomes from a prospective active-surveillance program for favorable-risk prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33(30): 3379–3385.

Zaytoun

Vargo

Rajan

, et al. Emergence of fluoroquinolone resistant Escherichia coli as cause of post prostate biopsy infection: implications for prophylaxis and treatment. Urology 2011; 77: 1035–1041.

D’Amico

Whittington

Malkowicz

, et al. Biochemical outcome after RP, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969.

Epstein

. Pathology of prostatic neoplasia. In: Campbell-Walsh urology, vol. 3. 11th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier, 2015, pp.2593–2600.

10.

Cox

DR.

The regression analysis of binary sequences (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 1958; 20: 215–242.

11.

Greene

Econometric analysis. 8th ed. New York, NY: Pearson, 2016.

12.

Brausi

Castagnetti

Dotti

, et al. Immediate radical prostatectomy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. Over treatment? J Urol 2004; 172(3): 906–908; discussion 908–909.

13.

Wiener

Haddock

Cusano

, et al. Incidence of clinically significant prostate cancer after a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation, high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia, or benign tissue. Urology 2017; 110: 161–165.

14.

Chan

Epstein

JI.

Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer. Urology 1999; 53: 351–355.

15.

Cool

Romagnoli

Izawa

, et al. Comparison of prostate MRI-3D transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for first-time and repeat biopsy patients with previous atypical small acinar proliferation. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10(9–10): 342–348.

16.

Ericson

Wenger

Rosen

, et al. Prostate cancer detection following diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Can J Urol 2017; 24(2): 8714–8720.

17.

Leone

Gershman

Rotker

, et al. Atypical small acinar proliferation (ASAP): is a repeat biopsy necessary ASAP? A multi-institutional review. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2016; 19(1): 68–71.

18.

Warlick

Feia

Tomasini

, et al. Rate of Gleason 7 or higher prostate cancer on repeat biopsy after a diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2015; 18(3): 255–259.

19.

Raskolnikov

Rais-Bahrami

George

, et al. The role of image guided biopsy targeting in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. J Urol 2015; 193: 473–478.

20.

Koca

Calışkan

Oztürk

MĐ

, et al. Significance of atypical small acinar proliferation and high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in prostate biopsy. Korean J Urol 2011; 52(11): 736–740.

21.

Hoedemaeker

Kranse

Rietbergen

, et al. Evaluation of prostate needle biopsies in a population-based screening study: the impact of borderline lesions. Cancer 1999; 85: 145–152.

22.

Park

Shinohara

Grossfeld

, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol 2001; 165: 1409–1414.

23.

Leite

Srougi

Dall’Oglio

, et al. Histopathological findings in extended prostate biopsy with PSA < or = 4 ng/mL. Int Braz J Urol 2008; 34: 283–290.

24.

Scattoni

Roscigno

Freschi

, et al. Predictors of prostate cancer after initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation at 10 to 12 core biopsies. Urology 2005; 66: 1043–1047.

25.

Ebstein

Herawi

Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 2006; 175: 820–834.

26.

Washino

Okochi

Saito

, et al. Combination of prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) score and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) density predicts biopsy outcome in prostate biopsy naïve patients. BJU Int 2017; 119(2): 225–233.

27.

Srirangam

Rai

Abroaf

, et al. 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. Can Urol 2017; 10(4): 199–205.