Current Oncology (Dec 2022)

Comparative Prospective and Longitudinal Analysis on the Platelet-to-Lymphocyte, Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte, and Albumin-to-Globulin Ratio in Patients with Non-Metastatic and Metastatic Prostate Cancer

  • Stefano Salciccia,
  • Marco Frisenda,
  • Giulio Bevilacqua,
  • Pietro Viscuso,
  • Paolo Casale,
  • Ettore De Berardinis,
  • Giovanni Battista Di Pierro,
  • Susanna Cattarino,
  • Gloria Giorgino,
  • Davide Rosati,
  • Francesco Del Giudice,
  • Antonio Carbone,
  • Antonio Pastore,
  • Benjamin I. Chung,
  • Michael L. Eisenberg,
  • Riccardo Autorino,
  • Simone Crivellaro,
  • Flavio Forte,
  • Alessandro Sciarra,
  • Gianna Mariotti,
  • Alessandro Gentilucci

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol29120745
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 29, no. 12
pp. 9474 – 9500

Abstract

Read online

Purpose: To prospectively evaluate the albumin/globulin ratio (AGR), neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) diagnostic and prognostic predictive value in a stratified population of prostate cancer (PC) cases. Methods: Population was divided based on the clinical and histologic diagnosis in: Group A: benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) cases (494 cases); Group B: all PC cases (525 cases); Group B1: clinically significant PC (426 cases); Group B2: non-metastatic PC (416 cases); Group B3: metastatic PC (109 cases). NLR, PLR, and AGR were obtained at the time of the diagnosis, and only in cases with PC considered for radical prostatectomy, determinations were also repeated 90 days after surgery. For each ratio, cut-off values were determined by receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) analysis and fixed at 2.5, 120.0, and 1.4, respectively, for NLR, PLR, and AGR. Results: Accuracy in predictive value for an initial diagnosis of clinically significant PC (csPC) was higher using PLR (0.718) when compared to NLR (0.220) and AGR (0.247), but, despite high sensitivity (0.849), very low specificity (0.256) was present. The risk of csPC significantly increased only according to PLR with an OR = 1.646. The percentage of cases with metastatic PC significantly increased according to high NLR and high PLR. Accuracy was 0.916 and 0.813, respectively, for NLR and PLR cut-off, with higher specificity than sensitivity. The risk of a metastatic disease increased 3.2 times for an NLR > 2.5 and 5.2 times for a PLR > 120 and at the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: PLR and NLR have a significant predictive value towards the development of metastatic disease but not in relation to variations in aggressiveness or T staging inside the non-metastatic PC. Our results suggest an unlikely introduction of these analyses into clinical practice in support of validated PC risk predictors.

Keywords