402 nificance of prostate needle biopsy findings: implications and cur- rent controversies. J Urol 2001;166:402-10. 3. Montironi R, Scattoni V, Mazzucchelli R, Lopez-Beltran A, Bostwick DG, Montorsi F. Atypical foci suspicious but not diag- nostic of malignancy in prostate needle biopsies (also referred to as "atypical small acinar proliferation suspicious for but not diag- nostic of malignancy"). Eur Urol 2006;50:666-74. 4. Oh JW, Kim YB, Yang SO, Lee JK, Kim YJ, Jung TY, et al. Pro- state cancer detection rate of rebiopsy in patients with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation of the prostate. Korean J Urol 2009;50:237-40. 5. Ramey JR, Halpern EJ, Gomella LG. Further commentary: ultra- sonography and biopsy of the prostate. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 9th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2007;2883-95. 6. Yun JH, Cho HD, Kim DS, Lee CH. The usefulness of P504S/ 34βE12 immunostaining for the detection of prostate cancer. Korean J Urol 2007;48:677-83. 7. Jiang Z, Li C, Fischer A, Dresser K, Woda BA. Using an AMACR (P504S)/34betaE12/p63 cocktail for the detection of small focal prostate carcinoma in needle biopsy specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2005;123:231-6. 8. Zhou M, Aydin H, Kanane H, Epstein JI. How often does al- pha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase contribute to resolving an atyp- ical diagnosis on prostate needle biopsy beyond that provided by basal cell markers? Am J Surg Pathol 2004;28:239-43. 9. Iczkowski KA. Current prostate biopsy interpretation: criteria for cancer, atypical small acinar proliferation, high-grade pro- static intraepithelial neoplasia, and use of immunostains. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:835-43. 10. Schlesinger C, Bostwick DG, Iczkowski KA. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation: predictive value for cancer in current practice. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:1201-7. 11. Brausi M, Castagnetti G, Dotti A, De Luca G, Olmi R, Cesinaro AM. Immediate radical prostatectomy in patients with atypical small acinar proliferation. Over treatment? J Urol 2004;172: 906-8. 12. Hodge KK, McNeal JE, Terris MK, Stamey TA. Random system- atic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate. J Urol 1989;142:71-4. 13. Elabbady AA, Khedr MM. Extended 12-core prostate biopsy in- creases both the detection of prostate cancer and the accuracy of Gleason score. Eur Urol 2006;49:49-53. 14. Bostwick DG, Montironi R. Evaluating radical prostatectomy specimens: therapeutic and prognostic importance. Virchows Arch 1997;430:1-16. 15. Park SJ, Miyake H, Hara I, Eto H. Predictors of prostate cancer on repeat transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy. Int J Urol 2003;10:68-71. 16. Samaratunga H, Gardiner RA, Yaxley J, Brown I. Atypical pro- static glandular proliferations on needle biopsy: diagnostic impli- Kim et al cations, use of immunohistochemistry, and clinical significance. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2006;28:104-10. 17. Mancuso PA, Chabert C, Chin P, Kovac P, Skyring T, Watt WH, et al. Prostate cancer detection in men with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. BJU Int 2007;99:49-52. 18. Fadare O, Wang S, Mariappan MR. Practice patterns of clinicians following isolated diagnoses of atypical small acinar proliferation on prostate biopsy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128: 557-60. 19. Iczkowski KA, Chen HM, Yang XJ, Beach RA. Prostate cancer di- agnosed after initial biopsy with atypical small acinar pro- liferation suspicious for malignancy is similar to cancer found on initial biopsy. Urology 2002;60:851-4. 20. Chan TY, Epstein JI. Follow-up of atypical prostate needle biop- sies suspicious for cancer. Urology 1999;53:351-5. 21. Flury SC, Galgano MT, Mills SE, Smolkin ME, Theodorescu D. Atypical small acinar proliferation: biopsy artefact or distinct pathological entity? BJU Int 2007;99:780-5. 22. Iczkowski KA, Bassler TJ, Schwob VS, Bassler IC, Kunnel BS, Orozco RE, et al. Diagnosis of "suspicious for malignancy" in pros- tate biopsies: predictive value for cancer. Urology 1998;51:749- 57. 23. Park S, Shinohara K, Grossfeld GD, Carroll PR. Prostate cancer detection in men with prior high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia or atypical prostate biopsy. J Urol 2001;165:1409-14. 24. Vis AN, Van Der Kwast TH. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and putative precursor lesions of prostate cancer: a clinical perspective. BJU Int 2001;88:147-57. 25. Allan RW, Sanderson H, Epstein JI. Correlation of minute (0.5 MM or less) focus of prostate adenocarcinoma on needle biopsy with radical prostatectomy specimen: role of prostate specific an- tigen density. J Urol 2003;170:370-2. 26. van Oort IM, Kok DE, Kiemeney LA, Hulsbergen-van de Kaa CA, Witjes JA. A single institution experience with biochemical re- currence after radical prostatectomy for tumors that on pathology are of small volume or "insignificant". Urol Oncol 2009;27:509-13. 27. Lee SE, Kim DS, Lee WK, Park HZ, Lee CJ, Doo SH, et al. Application of the Epstein criteria for prediction of clinically insig- nificant prostate cancer in Korean men. BJU Int 2009;Epub ahead of print 28. Jeldres C, Suardi N, Walz J, Hutterer GC, Ahyai S, Lattouf JB, et al. Validation of the contemporary epstein criteria for insignifi- cant prostate cancer in European men. Eur Urol 2008;54:1306-13. 29. Matsumoto K, Satoh T, Egawa S, Shimura S, Kuwao S, Baba S. Efficacy and morbidity of transrectal ultrasound-guided 12-core biopsy for detection of prostate cancer in Japanese men. Int J Urol 2005;12:353-60. 30. Ploussard G, Plennevaux G, Allory Y, Salomon L, Azoulay S, Vordos D, et al. High-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical small acinar proliferation on initial 21-core extended biopsy scheme: incidence and implications for patient care and surveillance. World J Urol 2009;27:587-92. Korean J Urol 2010;51:398-402