Association between platelet‑to‑lymphocyte ratio and serum prostate specific antigen
- Authors:
- Published online on: December 12, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2023.2708
- Article Number: 10
-
Copyright: © Hu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Prostate cancer (PCa) was the second-most common cause of cancer-related fatalities in humans in 2020 and the most common cancer in men (1). The most recognized biomarker for the early identification of PCa is serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA). PSA is highly specific for PCa. The widespread use of PSA testing has increased the detection rate of asymptomatic PCa, defined as highly differentiated PCa (2). Although there are more alternatives for the early diagnosis of PCa thanks to the development of new biomarkers including SelectMDx, ConfirmMDx, Pca3, MIPS, ExoDX and mpMRI, PSA testing remains the most widely used screening tool due to its favorable affordability and applicability (3). Most recently, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recently updated their guidelines, which upgraded the PSA recommendation level from a D as a screening-based level to a C as an advocate for personal screening (4,5). However, several studies have demonstrated that PSA concentrations may be influenced by additional factors that may help to cause bias in identifying PCa (6-8). Overdiagnosis or under-diagnosis affected by numerous factors, may result in inappropriate and unnecessary therapy (9). Therefore, screening PCa based on PSA concentration still has certain problems to be solved (10).
Inflammation is one of the most significant and well-known variables influencing cancer development (11). Hematological indicators that can indicate the state of the immune-inflammatory response in patients with cancer have recently received increasing attention (12,13). Systemic immune inflammatory index (SII), C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) are some of these measures. Because NLR and PLR are readily available and inexpensive, they have been extensively examined in several malignancies (14-16). PLR is a systemic parameter based on inflammation. Previous research has explored the diagnostic function of PLR in patients with PCa; however, findings remain inconclusive. Yuksel et al (17) found that PLR may distinguish between benign prostatic hyperplasia and PCa, ultimately serving as a diagnostic tool for PCa. Conversely, Lee et al (18) determined that pre-biopsy PLR is not predictive of clinically significant PCa (CSPCa), and thus, does not provide diagnostic value for PLR. Indeed, there may be some correlation between PLR and PSA metabolism, which may lead to detection bias in PCa diagnosis. Furthermore, to the best of the authors' knowledge, it was found that this phenomenon has never been reported before.
Consequently, a secondary data analysis was performed on the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. After controlling for a large number of influencing factors, it was sought to clarify the relationship between PLR and PSA concentration in men without PCa in the USA.
Materials and methods
Data availability
Since 1960, the NHANES, which is designed to estimate the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the US, has been conducted by the National Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the Prevention National Center for Health Statistics. Demographic and methodological details can be found on the NHANES website (www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes, accessed on October 7, 2022). The National Center approved the NHANES protocols for the Health Statistics Research Ethics Review Board.
Study population
The NHANES uses a stratified, multi-stage random sampling design and is a nationally representative nutrition survey of the general USA population. Five cycles of NHANES data from 2001 to 2010 were integrated into the present study. The data used for the second analysis included PSA concentrations, socio-demographic data and laboratory data. Participants were excluded from the present study based on the following exclusion criteria: i) Participants diagnosed with PCa (n=377); ii) missing PSA (n=44,412); iii) missing PLR (n=34); iv) factors affecting PSA concentration: Diagnosed with prostatitis, stain drug user, received prostate biopsy within one week and had urinary system surgery within one month (n=284); and v) Age <40 years (n=441). After screening, 6,638 out of 52,186 participants were suitable for the present study after thorough screening (Fig. 1). It is important to note that the present study was a survey regarding the relationship between a specific clinical indicator and PSA in the general male population in USA. Patients with PCa which have significantly different PSA levels compared with the general population and patients with PCa should be excluded as a confounding factor affecting PSA (19,20). In addition, the present study complied with the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association in the design and conduct of the present study. In the present study, data analysis based on NHANES was utilized.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using Package R and EmpowerStats (http://www.empowerstats.com), with a complex weighted sampling design from NHANES. Participants were characterized according to the quartiles of PLR (Category 1: 2.252-96.116; Category 2: 96.116-122.198; Category 3: 122.198-156.667; Category 4: >156.667). Percentages were used for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. For comparing the differences between groups, categorical and continuous variables were analyzed by using weighted χ2 tests and linear regression models, respectively. The link between PLR and PSA was assessed using a weighted multivariate linear regression model. An unadjusted model (Model 1) was created first, and then a minimally adjusted model (Model 2) was constructed after adjusting for age, family income, ethnicity, military status, marital status and education. Finally, fully adjusted models (Model 3) were calculated after adjusting for age, household income, ethnicity, military status, marital status, education, monocyte count, neutrophil count, platelet count, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and systemic immune inflammation index. The analysis was then stratified by age, family income, ethnicity, military status, marital status and education and tested for interactions. In the present study, a P<0.05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
Results
Baseline characteristics of participants
The weighted distribution of baseline characteristics is shown in Table I, including socio-demographic data and laboratory data of chosen participants selected from the NHANES (2001-2010) survey. In the present study, the average age of the chosen participants was 58.563±11.848 years. Then, different PLR were divided into four quartiles (Q1-Q4). The distribution of neutrophil and basophil count in Q1-Q4 of PLR revealed no statistical difference (P>0.05). Compared with the different groups in Table I, the distribution of PLR demonstrated an age difference, where aged participants had higher PLR than younger ones, had higher family income, higher platelet count, higher C-reactive protein, higher NLR, higher systemic immune inflammation index and were more likely to have a higher education level. On the other hand, participants with more elevated PLR had lower leukocyte count, lower mononuclear count, lower eosinophil count, lower red cell count, lower hemoglobin and lower LMR. In the present study, non-Hispanic whites were the main participants.
The connection between PSA concentrations and serum PLR
The results of the univariate and multivariate analyses by the weighted linear model are presented in Table II. In the non-adjusted model, PSA concentrations increased by 0.003 ng/ml (0.002, 0.004) with each increase in PLR, with a statistically significant trend indicated by a P<0.001. After minimal adjustment for age, household income, ethnicity, military status, marital status and education, PSA concentration increased by 0.002 ng/ml (0.001, 0.003) with each increase in PLR, with a statistically significant trend indicated by a P<0.001. The fully adjusted model that adjusts for age, family income, ethnicity, military status, marital status, education, mononuclear count, neutrophils count, platelet count, LMR and SII indicated that the PSA concentrations were increased by 0.004 ng/ml (0.001, 0.007) with each increase in PLR, with a statistically significant trend indicated by a P<0.004.
Stratified associations between PSA concentrations and PLR
As demonstrated in Table III, a stratified analysis was conducted by age, ratios of family income, ethnicity, military status, marital status and education to assess the associations between PLR and PSA concentrations. It is likely that those aged >80 years, a low group of ratios of family income, those who had not served in the military, had married, had an education level less than 9th grade and had higher PSA concentrations, with increasing PLR displaying a significant trend (p for trend=0.0148, p for trend=0.0027, p for trend=0.0192, p for trend=0.0373 and p for trend=0.0003). However, no interactive effects were observed.
Table IIIEffect size of PLR on prostate-specific antigen in the prespecified and exploratory subgroup. |
Identification of sensitivity analysis
A sensitivity analysis was conducted to confirm the accuracy and stability of the results. First, the PLR was converted as a continuous variable to the categorical variable in the quartile value, and then the P-value was calculated for the trend (Table II). Surprisingly, the result of the categorical variable was consistent with the effect of the PLR as a continuous variable. A smooth curve was constructed based on the fully adjusted model to investigate the possible linear relationship between the PLR and PSA concentrations. According to the fully adjusted model, there was a linear relationship between PLR and PSA concentration after adjusting for other covariates (Fig. 2). The results revealed that for each increase in PLR, the PSA concentrations were elevated by 0.004 ng/ml. These results indicated a positive association between PLR and PSA concentrations.
Discussion
PLR and PSA exhibited a favorable connection in the present study. To the best of the authors' knowledge, the present study is the first to examine and discover this link among men from USA without a history of cancer using the NHANES database. Although PLR and PSA have been studied previously, an association between them has not been discovered, and previous studies have suffered from small sample sizes and missing data (21). Accordingly, the connection between PLR and PSA necessitates additional research to clarify their relationship. Therefore, it is essential to further comprehend the individual variability in PSA concentrations that may emerge from PLR to prevent the bias of PSA testing during the diagnosis of prostate-related disorders. The present study population was drawn from NHANES (2001-2010), excluding 45,548 ineligible participants. The results of the present study revealed that with every increment of PLR, the PSA concentration increased by 0.004 ng/ml, which means that if the PLR increased by 100, the PSA concentration would increase by 0.4 ng/ml. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the results, which are robust.
Platelet and lymphocyte counts are routinely measured as parameters based on blood tests. PLR represents a marker of inflammation. High PLR reflects elevated platelet-dependent pro-tumor responses and reduced lymphocyte-mediated anti-tumor immune responses, which could potentially lead to cancer progression and a poor prognosis. Platelets have been shown to promote cancer cell growth and metastasis through direct and indirect actions (22,23). On PCa, on the one hand, platelets adhere to tumor cells with the help of fibrinogen; at the same time, they promote more fibrinogen aggregation around tumor cells by forming thrombin, thus protecting them from the cytotoxicity of natural killer cells (24); on the other hand, platelet-derived microparticles promote the invasiveness of PCa cells through upregulation of MMP-2 production (25). Currently, a considerable amount of evidence indicates that lymphocytes are the cellular basis of cancer immunosurveillance and can inhibit tumor cell proliferation and metastasis (26). Huang et al (27) revealed that high pre-treatment levels of circulating lymphocytes are associated with longer relapse-free survival and slightly improved overall survival (OS) in patients with oropharyngeal cancer. Sznurkowski et al (28) concluded that the increased number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes is associated with an improved prognosis in various cancers, including breast and colorectal. As a parameter combining platelet count and lymphocyte count, PLR can provide relatively accurate prognostic information about cancer patients (29,30). It is widely accepted that there is a strong correlation between the development and prognosis of tumors and a systemic inflammatory response (31-33). As a commonly used marker of systemic inflammation, the prognostic value of NLR has also been powerfully demonstrated in PCa (34-36). However, the significance of PLR in PCa prognosis remains conflicting (17,18).
A previous study provided evidence that PLR is an independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival and OS in PCa patients (37). Similarly, Yuksel et al (17) reported that PLR has the potential to differentiate between benign prostatic hyperplasia and PCa. This can ultimately serve as a diagnostic tool for PCa. By contrast, Lee et al (18) concluded that pre-biopsy PLR cannot significantly predict CSPCa, rendering it inadequate for PLR diagnosis. Similar results were reported by Sun et al (16), revealing that there is no significant correlation between PLR and either PCa or PSA after comparing the predictive effects of several inflammatory markers on PCa. Therefore, the aforementioned study concluded that PLR has little diagnostic and prognostic value for PCa. Because most studies involved men from Asia at relatively low risk of developing PCa and the conclusions were not definitive, studies are still needed to assess the relationship between PLR and PSA levels. Therefore, it was hypothesized that PLR affects PSA concentrations and may create testing bias, which could result in inconsistent interpretations. Further cohort trials are necessary to further comprehend the function of PLR as either a protective or risk factor in the progression of PCa.
The findings of the present study, support a positive correlation between PLR and PSA. A positive correlation between PLR and PSA can lead to detection bias, which may have implications for PCa screening. Since PLR preferentially elevates PSA concentrations in men without PCa, PSA testing for PCa screening in men with high PLR can lead to the overdiagnosis of asymptomatic PCa. Therefore, if PLR can elevate the PSA produced by prostate tumors or enhance the ability of tumor-derived PSA to enter the serum, it is necessary to adjust the PSA threshold for further examine platelets as well as lymphocytes to ultimately rule out interference with PSA by PLR. For example, in a high PLR population, the actual PSA value should be used as the screening diagnostic criterion. Actual PSA=PSA measurement-PLR * 0.004. Further studies are needed to explore the mechanisms by which the PLR affects PSA concentration and its impact on PCa screening. In addition, prospective cohort studies are still needed to confirm the causal relationship and serum platelets and lymphocytes are involved in both the genesis and development of PCa, which also needs to be verified by in vitro and in vivo experiments.
Compared with prior research, the present study boasts several noteworthy findings. Firstly, it is the first large-scale cross-sectional study to find a positive association between PLR and PSA in men from USA with a non-tumor history. Secondly, the present study utilized a highly reliable, standardized, and multilayer random sample, providing a representative portrayal of the general USA population. Then, a sensitivity analysis was performed and a smoothing curve was constructed based on a fully adjusted model to investigate the possible linear relationship between PLR and PSA concentration. Nevertheless, there are certain limitations to the interpretation of the findings of the present study. Primarily, it is challenging to distinguish causality in the present study due to the inherent limitations of the NHANES database as a cross-sectional survey. Although prospective studies have demonstrated that PLR has an important predictive role in the diagnosis and prognosis of PCa (38,39), prospective cohort studies are still needed for further validation because these studies are single center with small sample sizes. To further validate the accuracy and applicability of the findings of the present study, a prospective cohort study is being designed based on a Chinese population, and the authors are working towards a multicenter study. Furthermore, participants diagnosed with PCa were excluded and those with factors impacting PSA concentrations or missing data. Consequently, the findings of the present study cannot be generalized to the aforementioned population. Lastly, the survey is based on the NHANES database, which is limited to the individuals from USA. As a result, generalizability is geographically limited. Nonetheless, in conjunction with the existing studies in China, Italy, Austria, and other regions (16,40,41), there are favorable reasons to hypothesize that the association between PLR and PSA, or PCa, is geospatially generalizable.
In conclusion, in men from USA, there is an independent and positive association between PLR and PSA, which could potentially result in overdiagnosis of asymptomatic PCa in populations with higher PLR levels.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: The present study was supported by the Zhuhai Science and Technology Plan Projects in the Field of Social Development Foundation (grant no. 20191210E030071).
Availability of data and materials
All data are available at NHANES website https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/index.htm (accessed on October 7, 2022).
Authors' contributions
WL, HL and BH conceptualized and designed the study. BH and SH acquired and analyzed the data. MY interpreted the data. BH and SH wrote the original draft of the manuscript. WL and HL reviewed the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. BH, SH and MY confirm the authenticity of all the raw data.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE and Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 71:7–33. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Vickers AJ: Prostate cancer screening: Time to question how to optimize the ratio of benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med. 167:509–510. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Alarcón-Zendejas AP, Scavuzzo A, Jiménez-Ríos MA, Álvarez-Gómez RM, Montiel-Manríquez R, Castro-Hernández C, Jiménez-Dávila MA, Pérez-Montiel D, González-Barrios R, Jiménez-Trejo F, et al: The promising role of new molecular biomarkers in prostate cancer: From coding and non-coding genes to artificial intelligence approaches. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 25:431–443. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Fenton JJ, Weyrich MS, Durbin S, Liu Y, Bang H and Melnikow J: Prostate-Specific Antigen-Based screening for prostate cancer: Evidence report and systematic review for the US preventive services task force. JAMA. 319:1914–1931. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
US Preventive Services Task Force. Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK, Bibbins-Domingo K, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, Doubeni CA, Ebell M, Epling JW Jr, et al: Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 319:1901–1913. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Gudmundsson J, Sigurdsson JK, Stefansdottir L, Agnarsson BA, Isaksson HJ, Stefansson OA, Gudjonsson SA, Gudbjartsson DF, Masson G, Frigge ML, et al: Genome-wide associations for benign prostatic hyperplasia reveal a genetic correlation with serum levels of PSA. Nat Commun. 9(4568)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Zhao Y, Zhang Y, Wang X, Lin D and Chen Z: Relationship between body mass index and concentrations of prostate specific antigen: A cross-sectional study. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 80:162–167. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Liu Y, Xiao G, Zhou JW, Yang JK, Lu L, Bian J, Zhong L, Wei QZ, Zhou QZ, Xue KY, et al: Optimal starting age and baseline level for repeat tests: Economic concerns of PSA screening for Chinese Men-10-Year experience of a single center. Urol Int. 104:230–238. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Tan GH, Nason G, Ajib K, Woon DTS, Herrera-Caceres J, Alhunaidi O and Perlis N: Smarter screening for prostate cancer. World J Urol. 37:991–999. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Misra-Hebert AD, Hu B, Klein EA, Stephenson A, Taksler GB, Kattan MW and Rothberg MB: Prostate cancer screening practices in a large, integrated health system: 2007-2014. BJU Int. 120:257–264. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Cortellini A, Ricciuti B, Borghaei H, Naqash AR, D'Alessio A, Fulgenzi CAM, Addeo A, Banna GL and Pinato DJ: Differential prognostic effect of systemic inflammation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with immunotherapy or chemotherapy: A post hoc analysis of the phase 3 OAK trial. Cancer. 128:3067–3079. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Cao Y, Zheng X, Hu Y, Li J, Huang B, Zhao N, Liu T, Cai K and Tian S: Levels of systemic inflammation response index are correlated with tumor-associated bacteria in colorectal cancer. Cell Death Dis. 14(69)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Song M, Zhang Q, Song C, Liu T, Zhang X, Ruan G, Tang M, Xie H, Zhang H, Ge Y, et al: The advanced lung cancer inflammation index is the optimal inflammatory biomarker of overall survival in patients with lung cancer. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 13:2504–2514. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Cui S, Cao S, Chen Q, He Q and Lang R: Preoperative systemic inflammatory response index predicts the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Front Immunol. 14(1118053)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sawada R, Akiyoshi T, Kitagawa Y, Hiyoshi Y, Mukai T, Nagasaki T, Yamaguchi T, Konishi T, Yamamoto N, Ueno M and Fukunaga Y: Systemic inflammatory markers combined with tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte density for the improved prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 28:6189–6198. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sun Z, Ju Y, Han F, Sun X and Wang F: Clinical implications of pretreatment inflammatory biomarkers as independent prognostic indicators in prostate cancer. J Clin Lab Anal. 32(e22277)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Yuksel OH, Urkmez A, Akan S, Yldirim C and Verit A: Predictive value of the platelet-To-Lymphocyte ratio in diagnosis of prostate cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 16:6407–6412. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Lee JW, Jeong H, Son H and Cho MC: Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio is not a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer at the prostate biopsy: A large cohort study. Sci Rep. 11(14240)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Wei C, Tian L, Jia B, Wang M, Xiong M, Hu B, Deng C, Hou Y, Hou T, Yang X and Chen Z: Association between serum triglycerides and prostate specific antigen (PSA) among U.S. Males: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003-2010. Nutrients. 14(1325)2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Liu Z, Chen C, Yu F, Yuan D, Wang W, Jiao K, Yang S, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Liu L, et al: Association of total dietary intake of sugars with Prostate-Specific antigen (PSA) concentrations: Evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003-2010. Biomed Res Int. 2021(4140767)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
McDonald AC, Vira MA, Vidal AC, Gan W, Freedland SJ and Taioli E: Association between systemic inflammatory markers and serum prostate-specific antigen in men without prostatic disease-the 2001-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Prostate. 74:561–567. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Liao K, Zhang X, Liu J, Teng F, He Y, Cheng J, Yang Q, Zhang W, Xie Y, Guo D, et al: The role of platelets in the regulation of tumor growth and metastasis: The mechanisms and targeted therapy. MedComm (2020). 4(e350)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Wang J, Zhou X, He Y, Chen X, Liu N, Ding Z and Li J: Prognostic role of platelet to lymphocyte ratio in prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 97(e12504)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Li Y, Wang H, Zhao Z, Yang Y, Meng Z and Qin L: Effects of the interactions between platelets with other cells in tumor growth and progression. Front Immunol. 14(1165989)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Tao DL, Tassi Yunga S, Williams CD and McCarty OJT: Aspirin and antiplatelet treatments in cancer. Blood. 137:3201–3211. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Li L, Yu R, Cai T, Chen Z, Lan M, Zou T, Wang B, Wang Q, Zhao Y and Cai Y: Effects of immune cells and cytokines on inflammation and immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. Int Immunopharmacol. 88(106939)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Huang SH, Waldron JN, Milosevic M, Shen X, Ringash J, Su J, Tong L, Perez-Ordonez B, Weinreb I, Bayley AJ, et al: Prognostic value of pretreatment circulating neutrophils, monocytes, and lymphocytes in oropharyngeal cancer stratified by human papillomavirus status. Cancer. 121:545–555. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Sznurkowski JJ, Zawrocki A, Emerich J and Biernat W: Prognostic significance of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell infiltration within cancer cell nests in vulvar squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 21:717–721. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Ropponen KM, Eskelinen MJ, Lipponen PK, Alhava E and Kosma VM: Prognostic value of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in colorectal cancer. J Pathol. 182:318–324. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S, Goldstein L, Perez EA, Shulman LN, Martino S, Wang M, Jones VE, Saphner TJ, et al: Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials: ECOG 2197 and ECOG 1199. J Clin Oncol. 32:2959–2966. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Schuettfort VM, D'Andrea D, Quhal F, Mostafaei H, Laukhtina E, Mori K, König F, Rink M, Abufaraj M, Karakiewicz PI, et al: A panel of systemic inflammatory response biomarkers for outcome prediction in patients treated with radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma. BJU Int. 129:182–193. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Xie H, Ruan G, Wei L, Deng L, Zhang Q, Ge Y, Song M, Zhang X, Lin S, Liu X, et al: The inflammatory burden index is a superior systemic inflammation biomarker for the prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 14:869–878. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Shafique K, Proctor MJ, McMillan DC, Qureshi K, Leung H and Morrison DS: Systemic inflammation and survival of patients with prostate cancer: Evidence from the Glasgow Inflammation Outcome Study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 15:195–201. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Jang WS, Cho KS, Kim MS, Yoon CY, Kang DH, Kang YJ, Jeong WS, Ham WS and Choi YD: The prognostic significance of postoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Oncotarget. 8:11778–11787. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Kwon YS, Han CS, Yu JW, Kim S, Modi P, Davis R, Park JH, Lee P, Ha YS, Kim WJ and Kim IY: Neutrophil and lymphocyte counts as clinical markers for stratifying low-risk prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 14:e1–e8. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Wang S, Ji Y, Chen Y, Du P, Cao Y, Yang X, Ma J, Yu Z and Yang Y: The values of systemic Immune-Inflammation index and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio in the localized prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia: A retrospective clinical study. Front Oncol. 11(812319)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Wang Y, Xu F, Pan J, Zhu Y, Shao X, Sha J, Wang Z, Cai Y, Liu Q, Dong B, et al: Platelet to lymphocyte ratio as an independent prognostic indicator for prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy. BMC Cancer. 16(329)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Li F, Hu H, Gu S, Chen X and Sun Q: Platelet to lymphocyte ratio plays an important role in prostate cancer's diagnosis and prognosis. Int J Clin Exp Med. 8:11746–11751. 2015.PubMed/NCBI | |
Chong W, Zhang Z, Luo R, Gu J, Lin J, Wei Q, Li B, Myers R, Lu-Yao G, Kelly WK, et al: Integration of circulating tumor cell and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio to identify high-risk metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 21(655)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Bauckneht M, Rebuzzi SE, Signori A, Frantellizzi V, Murianni V, Lodi Rizzini E, Lavelli V, Donegani MI, Ponzano M, Gaudiano A, et al: The prognostic power of inflammatory indices and clinical factors in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients treated with radium-223 (BIO-Ra study). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 49:1063–1074. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
Langsenlehner T, Pichler M, Thurner EM, Krenn-Pilko S, Stojakovic T, Gerger A and Langsenlehner U: Evaluation of the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic indicator in a European cohort of patients with prostate cancer treated with radiotherapy. Urol Oncol. 33(201.e9-e16)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar |