scholarly journals Diagnostic Value of Platelet–To-Lymphocyte Ratio in Prostate Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 1093-1096 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kharisma Prasetya Adhyatma ◽  
Syah Mirsya Warli
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Diagnostic Values ◽  
Absolute Lymphocyte Counts ◽  
The Relationship

BACKGROUND: Previous studies demonstrated the promising value of platelet-to-lymphocyte (PLR) in prostate cancer. AIM: This study was conducted to evaluate its pre-biopsy values in predicting prostate cancer. METHODS: We included all benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa) patients who underwent a prostate biopsy in Adam Malik Hospital between August 11th 2011 and August 31st 2015. The relationship between pre-biopsy variables which could be affecting the percentage of prostate cancer risk was evaluated, including age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, and prostate volume (EPV). The PLR was calculated from the ratio of related platelets with their absolute lymphocyte counts. The values then analysed to evaluate their associations with the diagnosis of BPH and PCa. RESULTS: As many as 298 patients consisted of 126 (42.3%) BPH and 172 PCa (57.7%) patients are included in this study. Mean age for both groups are 66.36 ± 7.53 and 67.99 ± 7.48 years old (p = 0.64), respectively. There are statistically significant differences noted from PSA (19.28 ± 27.11 vs 40.19 ± 49.39), EPV (49.39 ± 23.51 vs 58.10 ± 30.54), PLR (160.27 ± 98.96 vs 169.55 ± 78.07), and NLR (3.57 ± 3.23 vs 4.22 ± 2.59) features of both groups (p < 0.05). The AUC of PLR is 57.9% with a sensitivity of 56.4% and specificity of 55.6% in the cut-off point of 143 (p = 0.02). Besides, the NLR cut-off point of 3.08 gives 62.8% AUC with 64.5% sensitivity and 63.5% specificity. We asked for permission from the preceding authors of Indonesian Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator (IPCRC) and calculated its value from 98 randomised patients consist of 45 (45.92%) BPH and 53 (54.08%) PCa. We found a comparable value between PLR/NLR with IPCRC in predicting prostate cancer (AUC of 67.6%, 75.3%, and 68.4%, respectively) with a statistically significant difference of all value in both groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: PLR gives promising value in predicting prostate cancer in suspected patients. We suggest a further prospective study to validate its diagnostic values so it can be used as applicable routine calculation.

scholarly journals Insulin-Like Growth Factor I Is Not a Useful Marker of Prostate Cancer in Men with Elevated Levels of Prostate-Specific Antigen1

2000 ◽  
Vol 85 (8) ◽  
pp. 2744-2747
Author(s):  
Patrik Finne ◽  
Anssi Auvinen ◽  
Hannu Koistinen ◽  
Wan-Ming Zhang ◽  
Liisa Määttänen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Volume ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Elevated Serum ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Factor I ◽  
Igf I ◽  
Igfbp 3

High serum levels of insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and low levels of IGF-binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) have been shown to correlate with increased prostate cancer risk. To evaluate this, IGF-I, IGFBP-3, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) were measured in serum from 665 consecutive men (179 with prostate cancer), aged 55–67 yr, with elevated serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA; ≥4 μg/L) in a screening trial. Men in the highest quartile of IGF-I levels had an odds ratio (OR) for prostate cancer of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26–0.97] when adjusting for serum IGFBP-3. IGFBP-3 itself was not significantly associated with prostate cancer risk (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.68–2.24). Prostate volume was larger in men without than in those with prostate cancer (P &lt; 0.001), and after adjustment for prostate volume, the negative association between serum IGF-I and prostate cancer risk was no longer significant (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.28–1.16). In screen-positive men with elevated serum PSA, serum IGF-I is not a useful diagnostic test for prostate cancer, but it may be associated with benign prostatic hyperplasia and enlargement.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Prostate-Specific Antigen and Prostate Cancer Risk: The Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (17) ◽  
pp. 4374-4381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J. Vickers ◽  
Angel M. Cronin ◽  
Monique J. Roobol ◽  
Jonas Hugosson ◽  
J. Stephen Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Collaborative Group ◽  
The Relationship

Cumulative Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment with the Aid of the Free-to-Total Prostate Specific Antigen Ratio

2004 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Aus ◽  
Charlotte Becker ◽  
Stefan Franzén ◽  
Hans Lilja ◽  
Pär Lodding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Cancer Risk Assessment ◽  
Total Prostate Specific Antigen

scholarly journals Pre-treatment risk stratification of prostate cancer patients:A critical review

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
George Rodrigues ◽  
Padraig Warde ◽  
Tom Pickles ◽  
Juanita Crook ◽  
Michael Brundage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Gleason Score ◽  
Critical Review ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Pre Treatment

Introduction:  The use of accepted prostate cancer risk stratification groups based on prostate-specific antigen, T stage and Gleason score assists in therapeutic treatment decision-making, clinical trial design and outcome reporting. The utility of integrating novel prognostic factors into an updated risk stratification schema is an area of current debate. The purpose of this work is to critically review the available literature on novel pre-treatment prognostic factors and alternative prostate cancer risk stratification schema to assess the feasibility and need for changes to existing risk stratification systems. Methods:  A systematic literature search was conducted to identify original research publications and review articles on prognostic factors and risk stratification in prostate cancer. Search terms included risk stratification, risk assessment, prostate cancer or neoplasms, and prognostic factors. Abstracted information was assessed to draw conclusions regarding the potential utility of changes to existing risk stratification schema. Results:  The critical review identified three specific clinically relevant potential changes to the most commonly used three-group risk stratification system: (1) the creation of a very-low risk category; (2) the splitting of intermediate-risk into a low- and highintermediate risk groups; and (3) the clarification of the interface between intermediate- and high-risk disease. Novel pathological factors regarding high-grade cancer, subtypes of Gleason score 7 and percentage biopsy cores positive were also identified as potentially important risk-stratification factors. Conclusions:  Multiple studies of prognostic factors have been performed to create currently utilized prostate cancer risk stratification systems. We propose potential changes to existing systems.

Polymorphisms in the androgen receptor and the prostate-specific antigen genes and prostate cancer risk

The Prostate ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Salinas ◽  
Melissa A. Austin ◽  
Elaine O. Ostrander ◽  
Janet L. Stanford
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Androgen Receptor ◽  
Cancer Risk ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document