The values of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and/or prostate-specific antigen in discriminating real Gleason score ≥ 7 prostate cancer from group of biopsy-based Gleason score ≤ 6

被引:9
|
作者
Wang, Hanfeng [1 ]
Gu, Liangyou [1 ]
Wu, Yongjie [2 ]
Feng, Dan [3 ]
Duan, Junyao [1 ]
Wang, Xiaocong [4 ]
Huang, Yong [4 ]
Wu, Shengpan [1 ]
Chen, Jianwen [1 ]
Luo, Guangda [1 ]
Zhang, Xu [1 ]
机构
[1] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Dept Urol, PLA Med Sch, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese PLA 264 Hosp, Dept Gen Surg, Taiyuan 030000, Shanxi, Peoples R China
[3] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, PLA Med Sch, Med Stat Div, Hosp Management Inst, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Dept Pathol, PLA Med Sch, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
来源
BMC CANCER | 2017年 / 17卷
关键词
Prostate cancer; Neoplasm grading; Systemic inflammatory index; Watchful waiting; ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY; NEEDLE-BIOPSY; FOLLOW-UP; RISK; DISEASE; TRENDS; GRADE;
D O I
10.1186/s12885-017-3614-9
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: The discrepant concordance between biopsy and radical prostatectomy (RP) specimen are well reported. To validate the clinical usefulness of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in discriminating real GS >= 7 PCa from biopsy-based GS <= 6 PCa in comparison with serum total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA) and value of their combination. Methods: One hundred one patients who underwent physical examinations incidentally found elevated tPSA and subsequently received biopsy with a conclusion of GS <= 6 and RP with an interval of 4-6 weeks after biopsy were enrolled. NLR and tPSA were obtained within 15 days prior to biopsy. Logistic regression model was applied appropriately; McNemar tests and AUC model were performed to evaluate differences among tPSA, NLR and their combination and corresponding diagnostic power respectively. Results: The pathological results from RP specimen comprised 61 patients with GS <= 6 and 100 patients with GS >= 7. Higher tPSA and NLR were significantly associated with patients with actual GS >= 7 (All P < 0.05) concurrently. Multivariate logistic regression indicated that tPSA (OR = 1.088, 95% C. I. = 1.029-1.151, P = 0.003) and NLR (OR = 1.807, 95% C. I. = 1.021-3.200, P = 0.042) could be independent predictors for GS groupings. Under cutoff value of 14.09 ng/ml for tPSA and 2.25 for NLR, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 60.0%, 80.3% and 67.7% for tPSA, 42%, 88.5% and 59.6% for NLR, and 71.0%, 75.4% and 72.7% for combination of tPSA and NLR (tPSA + NLR) respectively. The sensitivity of tPSA + NLR was significantly higher in comparison with tPSA (P = 0.001) and NLR (P < 0.001). Except for sensitivity, no significant difference was found between tPSA and NLR in specificity (P = 0.227) and accuracy (P = 0.132). tPSA got the largest AUC with 0.732 (p < 0.001, 95% C. I.: 0.651-0.813). Conclusions: Serum tPSA and NLR were significantly elevated among GS >= 7 PCa concurrently. The combination of tPSA and NLR might have additional benefit to biopsy on discriminating real GS >= 7 Pca from biopsy-based GS <= 6 PCa. More stratification models and prospectively multicenter studies are necessary.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The values of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and/or prostate-specific antigen in discriminating real Gleason score ≥ 7 prostate cancer from group of biopsy-based Gleason score ≤ 6
    Hanfeng Wang
    Liangyou Gu
    Yongjie Wu
    Dan Feng
    Junyao Duan
    Xiaocong Wang
    Yong Huang
    Shengpan Wu
    Jianwen Chen
    Guangda Luo
    Xu Zhang
    BMC Cancer, 17
  • [2] Prostate-specific antigen velocity and the detection of Gleason score 7 to 10 prostate cancer
    Punglia, Rinaa S.
    Cullen, Jennifer
    McLeod, David G.
    Chen, Yongmei
    D'Amico, Anthony V.
    CANCER, 2007, 110 (09) : 1973 - 1978
  • [3] Staging for prostate cancer - Time to incorporate pretreatment prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score?
    Roach, Mack, III
    Weinberg, Vivian
    Sandier, Howard
    Thompson, Ian
    CANCER, 2007, 109 (02) : 213 - 220
  • [4] The Relationship Between Prostate-Specific Antigen and TNM Classification or Gleason Score in Prostate Cancer Patients With Low Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels
    Izumi, Kouji
    Ikeda, Hiroko
    Maolake, Aerken
    Machioka, Kazuaki
    Nohara, Takahiro
    Narimoto, Kazutaka
    Ueno, Satoru
    Kadono, Yoshifumi
    Kitagawa, Yasuhide
    Konaka, Hiroyuki
    Mizokami, Atsushi
    Namiki, Mikio
    PROSTATE, 2015, 75 (10): : 1034 - 1042
  • [5] Prostate Specific Antigen Level and Gleason Score in Indonesian Prostate Cancer Patients
    Herawan, Muhammad Imam Al Kautsar
    Adriansjah, Ricky
    MAJALAH KEDOKTERAN BANDUNG, 2024, 56 (03): : 209 - 213
  • [6] THE ROLE OF TRANSRECTAL ULTRASOUND-GUIDED BIOPSY-BASED STAGING, PREOPERATIVE SERUM PROSTATE-SPECIFIC ANTIGEN, AND BIOPSY GLEASON SCORE IN PREDICTION OF FINAL PATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSIS IN PROSTATE-CANCER
    NARAYAN, P
    GAJENDRAN, V
    TAYLOR, SP
    TEWARI, A
    PRESTI, JC
    LEIDICH, R
    LO, R
    PALMER, K
    SHINOHARA, K
    SPAULDING, JT
    UROLOGY, 1995, 46 (02) : 205 - 212
  • [7] Local treatment for newly diagnosed low prostate-specific antigen, high Gleason score prostate cancer
    Liu, Shuai
    Wang, Xiaoying
    Zhou, Guangchen
    ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (06) : 4416 - 4417
  • [8] Predictive Value of Preoperative Prostate-Specific Antigen and Gleason Score in Patients with High Risk Prostate Cancer
    Djozic, S.
    Djozic, J.
    Bogdanovic, J.
    Sekulic, V
    Marusic, G.
    Herin, R.
    Levakov, I
    Vojnov, S.
    Jeremic, D.
    Zivojinov, S.
    UROLOGY, 2012, 80 (03) : S288 - S289
  • [9] Comparative effectiveness of local treatment for low prostate-specific antigen, high Gleason score prostate cancer
    Guo, Boda
    Liu, Ming
    ANNALS OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 9 (06) : 4418 - 4419
  • [10] Limitations of biopsy Gleason grade: Implications for counseling patients with biopsy Gleason score 6 prostate cancer
    Sved, PD
    Gomez, P
    Manoharan, M
    Kim, SS
    Soloway, MS
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2004, 172 (01): : 98 - 102