Advertisement

What is the meaning of “atypical glands suspicious but not diagnostic of adenocarcinoma” in a pathology diagnosis? Is “atypical small acinar proliferation” a pathologic entity?

Abstract

Atypical glands suspicious but not diagnostic of carcinoma indicate that the pathologic findings are not sufficient for a definitive diagnosis of cancer but suspicious enough for further investigation. Therefore, a rebiopsy should be recommended. Only a definitive diagnosis of carcinoma is an indication for therapy; a suspicious diagnosis should not lead to therapy for prostate cancer such as surgery, irradiation, or hormonal therapy.

Keywords

Needle Core Biopsy Prostate Biopsy Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Repeat Biopsy Pathologic Entity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Kisner HJ (1998) The gray zone. Clin Lab Manage Rev 12:277–280.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein JI (1998) Atypical small acinar proliferation of the prostate gland. Am J Surg Pathol 22:1430.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chan TY, Epstein JI (1999) Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biopsies suspicious for cancer. Urology 53:351–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Iczkowski KA, MacLennan GT, Boswick DG (1997) Atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for malignancy in prostate needle biopsy: clinical significance in 33 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 21:1489–1495.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Murphy WM (1999) ASAP is a bad idea: atypical small acinar proliferation. Hum Pathol 30:601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Epstein JI (1999) How should atypical prostate needle biopsies be reported? Controversies regarding the term “ASAP”. Hum Pathol 30:1401–1402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Iczkowski KA, Cheng L, Qian J, Shanks J, Gadaleanu V, Bostwick DG, Ramnani DM (1999) ASAP is a valid diagnosis: atypical small acinar proliferation. Hum Pathol 30:774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Dowd GL, Miller MC, Orozco R (2000) Analysis of repeated biopsy results within 1 year after a noncancer diagnosis. Urology 55:553–559.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Epstein JI, Herawi M (2006) Prostate needle biopsies containing prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical foci suspicious for carcinoma: implications for patient care. J Urol 175:820–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang Z, Iczkowski KA, Woda BA, Tretiakova M, Yang XJ (2004) P504 immunostaining boosts diagnostic resolution of “suspicious” foci in prostatic needle biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 121:99–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kronz JD, Shaikh AA, Epstein JI (2001) High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia with adjacent atypical glands on prostate biopsy. Hum Pathol 32:389–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Personalised recommendations