The Change in Neutrophil Lymphocyte Ratio from the First to the Last Repeat Prostate Biopsy Proposed as a Marker of Carcinogenesis

Abstract

Introduction: We investigated whether the change in the neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) from the first to the last repeat prostate biopsy (ΔNLR) could be the diagnostic tool or not for prostate cancer (PCa) detection. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated medical records of men who had undergone repeat prostate biopsy. The investigated parameters were white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte counts, NLR at the last prostate biopsy, ΔNLR, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), and PSA velocity. Exclusion criteria were the presence of cancers other than prostate origin, medication, and diseases which induce the change of NLR. Results: A total of 301 men who had undergone repeat prostate biopsy were selected for this study. After applying exclusion criteria, 223 patients were included. Of these patients, 94 were diagnosed with PCa (Group I) and 129 with no malignancy (Group II). Only a single patient had metastasis. On evaluating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of all study parameters, ΔNLR was the most accurate marker, followed by PSAD and then NLR measured at the last biopsy. Conclusions: ΔNLR was the most accurate marker to improve the total predictive value in repeat prostate biopsy for diagnosing PCa.

Prognostic role of platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with non-metastatic and metastatic prostate cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review

“…Of the 42 articles selected for the review [ 8 , [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [31] , [32] , [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] , [37] , [38] , [39] , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] ], 24 studies considered NLR, eight studies PLR, and 10 studies both NLR and PLR. Moreover, 40 studies were retrospective and only two were prospective, either mono- or multi-center clinical trials ( Supplementary tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 ).…”