Background: Several biochemical and clinical markers have been proposed for selecting patients for active surveillance (AS). However, some of these are expensive and not easily accessible. Moreover, currently about 30% of patients on AS harbor aggressive disease. Hence, there is an urgent need for other tools to accurately identify patients with low-risk prostate cancer (PCa). Patients: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and were eligible for AS according to the following criteria: clinical stage T2a or less, prostate-specific antigen level < 10 ng/mL, 2 or fewer cores involved with cancer, Gleason score (GS) ≤6 grade, and prostate-specific antigen density < 0.2 ng/mL/cc. Methods: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the association of patient and tumor characteristics with reclassification, defined as upstaged (pathological stage >pT2) and upgraded (GS ≥7) disease. A base model (age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and clinical stage) was compared with models considering neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) or platelets to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), monocyte to lymphocyte (MLR), and eosinophil to lymphocyte ratio (ELR). OR and 95% CI were calculated. Finally, a decision curve analysis was performed. Results: Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that NLR, PLR, and ELR upgrading were significantly associated with upgrading (ORs ranging from 2.13 to 4.13), but not with upstaging except for MLR in multivariate analysis, showing a protective effect. Conclusion: Our results showed that NLR, PLR, and ELR are predictors of Gleason upgrading. Therefore, these inexpensive and easily available tests might be useful in the assessment of low-risk PCa, when considering patients for AS.

Keywords:
Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, Platelets to lymphocyte ratio, Eosinophil to lymphocyte, Prostate cancer
1.
Moyer VA: Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 120–134.
2.
Bastian PJ, Carter BH, Bjartell A, et al: Insignificant prostate cancer and active surveillance: from definition to clinical implications. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1321–1330.
3.
McVey GP, McPhail S, Fowler S, McIntosh G, Gillatt D, Parker CC: Initial management of low-risk localized prostate cancer in the UK: analysis of the British association of urological surgeons cancer registry. BJU Int 2010; 106: 1161–1164.
4.
Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al: Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203–213.
5.
Faria EF, Chapin BF, Muller RL, Machado RD, Reis RB, Matin SF: Radical prostatectomy for locally advanced prostate cancer: current status. Urology 2015; 86: 10–15.
6.
Tran E, Paquette M, Pickles T, et al: Population-based validation of a policy change to use long-term androgen deprivation therapy for cT3–4 prostate cancer: impact of the EORTC22863 and RTOG 85–31 and 92–02 trials. Radiother Oncol 2013; 107: 366–371.
7.
Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al: Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol 2006; 49: 820–826.
8.
D&apos;Amico AV, Whittington R, Malkowicz SB, et al: Biochemical outcome after radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, or interstitial radiation therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998; 280: 969–974.
9.
Cantiello F, Russo GI, Ferro M, et al: Prognostic accuracy of Prostate Health Index and urinary Prostate Cancer Antigen 3 in predicting pathologic features after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 163.e15–e23.
10.
Ploussard G, Durand X, Xylinas E, et al: Prostate cancer antigen 3 score accurately predicts tumour volume and might help in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 422–429.
11.
Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Bruzzese D, et al: Improving the prediction of pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: the value of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), prostate health index (PHI) and sarcosine. Anticancer Res 2015; 35: 1017–1023.
12.
Siddiqui MM, Truong H, Rais-Bahrami S, et al: Clinical implications of a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging based nomogram applied to prostate cancer active surveillance. J Urol 2015; 193: 1943–1949.
13.
Walton Diaz A, Shakir NA, George AK, et al: Use of serial multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of patients with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 202.e1–e7.
14.
Ferro M, Ungaro P, Cimmino A, et al: Epigenetic signature: a new player as predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) in patients on active surveillance (AS). Int J Mol Sci 2017; 18:e1146.
15.
Partin AW, Van Neste L, Klein EA, et al: Clinical validation of an epigenetic assay to predict negative histopathological results in repeat prostate biopsies. J Urol 2014; 192: 1081–1087.
16.
Ozmen S, Timur O, Calik I, et al: Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) may be superior to C-reactive protein (CRP) for predicting the occurrence of differentiated thyroid cancer. Endocr Regul 2017; 51: 131–136.
17.
Lee YS, Nam HS, Lim JH, et al: Prognostic impact of a new score using neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratios in the serum and malignant pleural effusion in lung cancer patients. BMC Cancer 2017; 17: 557.
18.
Jang WS, Cho KS, Kim MS, et al: The prognostic significance of postoperative neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio after radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 11778–11787.
19.
Gokce MI, Hamidi N, Suer E, Tangal S, Huseynov A, Ibis A: Evaluation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio prior to prostate biopsy to predict biopsy histology: results of 1836 patients. Can Urol Assoc J 2015; 9:e761–e765.
20.
Oh JJ, Kwon O, Lee JK, et al: Association of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and prostate cancer detection rates in patients via contemporary multi-core prostate biopsy. Asian J Androl 2016; 18: 937–941.
21.
Bangma CH, Bul M, Roobol M: The prostate cancer research international: active surveillance study. Curr Opin Urol 2012; 22: 216–221.
22.
van der Kwast TH, Amin MB, Billis A, et al: International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on handling and staging of radical prostatectomy specimens. working group 2: T2 substaging and prostate cancer volume. Mod Pathol 2011; 24: 16–25.
23.
Roobol MJ, Verbeek JF, van der Kwast T, Kummerlin IP, Kweldam CF, van Leenders GJ: Improving the rotterdam European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for initial prostate biopsy by incorporating the 2014 international society of urological pathology gleason grading and cribriform growth. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 45–51.
24.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB: Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 2006; 26: 565–574.
25.
Sundi D, Ross AE, Humphreys EB, et al: ­African American men with very low-risk prostate cancer exhibit adverse oncologic outcomes after radical prostatectomy: should active surveillance still be an option for them? J Clin Oncol 2013; 31: 2991–2997.
26.
Cary KC, Cooperberg MR: Biomarkers in prostate cancer surveillance and screening: past, present, and future. Ther Adv Urol 2013; 5: 318–329.
27.
de Cobelli O, Terracciano D, Tagliabue E, et al: Body mass index was associated with upstaging and upgrading in patients with low-risk prostate cancer who met the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. Urol Oncol 2015; 33:e201–e208.
28.
Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Bruzzese D, et al: Low serum total testosterone level as a predictor of upstaging and upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients meeting the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 18424–18434.
29.
Grivennikov SI, Greten FR, Karin M: Immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cell 2010; 140: 883–899.
30.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA: Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 2011; 144: 646–674.
31.
Wei Y, Jiang YZ, Qian WH: Prognostic role of NLR in urinary cancers: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014; 9:e92079.
32.
Wu Y, Li C, Zhao J, et al Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratios predict chemotherapy outcomes and prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastasis. World J Surg Oncol 2016; 14: 289.
33.
Bagante F, Tran TB, Postlewait LM, et al: Neutrophil-lymphocyte and platelet-lymphocyte ratio as predictors of disease specific survival after resection of adrenocortical carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 2015; 112: 164–172.
34.
Carruthers R, Tho LM, Brown J, Kakumanu S, McCartney E, McDonald AC: Systemic inflammatory response is a predictor of ­outcome in patients undergoing preoperative chemoradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis 2012; 14:e701–707.
35.
van Soest RJ, Templeton AJ, Vera-Badillo FE, et al: Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as a prognostic biomarker for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: data from two randomized phase III trials. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 743–749.
36.
Langsenlehner T, Pichler M, Thurner EM, et al: 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 2015; 33: 201.e9–e16.
37.
Wang Y, Xu F, Pan J, et al: Platelet to lymphocyte ratio as an independent prognostic indicator for prostate cancer patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 329.
38.
Bakewell SJ, Nestor P, Prasad S, et al: Platelet and osteoclast beta3 integrins are critical for bone metastasis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100: 14205–14210.
39.
Smyth SS, McEver RP, Weyrich AS, et al: Platelet functions beyond hemostasis. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7: 1759–1766.
40.
Dashevsky O, Varon D, Brill A: Platelet-derived microparticles promote invasiveness of prostate cancer cells via upregulation of MMP-2 production. Int J Cancer 2009; 124: 1773–1777.
41.
Hayashi T, Fujita K, Tanigawa G, et al: Serum monocyte fraction of white blood cells is increased in patients with high gleason score prostate cancer. Oncotarget 2017; 8: 35255–35261.
42.
Sakkal S, Miller S, Apostolopoulos V, Nurgali K: Eosinophils in cancer: favourable or unfavourable? Curr Med Chem 2016; 23: 650–666.
43.
Michalaki V, Syrigos K, Charles P, Waxman J: Serum levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha correlate with clinicopathological features and patient survival in patients with prostate cancer. Br J Cancer 2004; 90: 2312–2316.
44.
Mantovani A, Allavena P, Sica A, Balkwill F: Cancer-related inflammation. Nature 2008; 454: 436–444.
45.
Lu H, Ouyang W, Huang C: Inflammation, a key event in cancer development. Mol Cancer Res 2006; 4: 221–233.
46.
Kusumanto YH, Dam WA, Hospers GA, Meijer C, Mulder NH: Platelets and granulocytes, in particular the neutrophils, form important compartments for circulating vascular endothelial growth factor. Angiogenesis 2003; 6: 283–287.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.