Measurement of PLR and NLR

Oct 13, 2025 by wbrum.org 114 views

Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) and Gleason Score as Predictor Prognosis of Prostate Cancer in All Prostate Cancer Outpatients at H. Adam Malik Hospital

Introduction

Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer affecting men worldwide, with a significant impact on their quality of life and mortality rates. Early detection and accurate prognosis are crucial in determining the best course of treatment and improving patient outcomes. The Gleason Score has been the primary indicator for determining the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. However, recent studies have shown that other biomarkers, such as the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), can also play a significant role in predicting the prognosis of prostate cancer patients.

The Importance of PLR and NLR in Prostate Cancer Prognosis

The PLR and NLR have been proven to have a significant relationship with cancer-specific scores in patients suffering from prostate cancer. These ratios can be used as a parameter to determine the prognosis of prostate cancer, although the Gleason Score has always been the main parameter. The PLR is calculated by dividing the number of platelets by the number of lymphocytes, while the NLR is calculated by dividing the number of neutrophils by the number of lymphocytes. Both ratios have been shown to be associated with cancer progression and metastasis.

Methodology

This study aimed to combine the three variables (PLR, NLR, and Gleason Score) in assessing their contribution to the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. The research was conducted at the Department of Urology of H. Adam Malik General Hospital Medan, starting in 2012 and continued observations until 2017. A total of 70 samples that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were analyzed using the Spearman Correlation Test and the Kaplan-Meier Curve to see the survival rate with SPSS Statistics Program Version 21.

Results

From the analysis of 70 samples, the relationship between PLR and NLR and the NLR and Gleason Score was found, with the value of P <0.001. The correlation obtained is 0.675 for PLR and 0.607 for NLR. In addition, the analysis of intake shows that patients with Gleason Score ≥ 6 have a median of survival time for 767 days, while they with Gleason Score <6 have a longer survival median, which is 1158 days. The survival rate in five years in patients with gleason scores ≥ 6 is recorded at 41.6%, while for patients with Gleason Score <6 reaching 85.7%.

Discussion

The results showed that an increase in PLR and NLR had a significant relationship with an increase in Gleason scores in prostate cancer patients. This finding shows the importance of measurement of PLR and NLR in clinical practice to increase the accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer patients. It is essential to note that the Gleason Score remains the main indicator for determining the prognosis, but with the addition of parameters such as PLR and NLR, a more comprehensive picture can be obtained regarding the patient's health status.

The Role of PLR and NLR in Prostate Cancer Prognosis

The PLR and NLR can be used as additional important information in the prognosis of prostate cancer patients, especially for those who have Gleason scores ≥ 6. The implementation of this measurement in clinical practice can help improve the results of care and quality of life of patients. The PLR and NLR can provide valuable information about the patient's inflammatory response and cancer progression, which can help doctors make more appropriate decisions regarding treatment plans and management of prostate cancer patients.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has shown that the PLR and NLR are closely related to the Gleason Score in prostate cancer patients. The implementation of PLR and NLR measurement in clinical practice can help improve the accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer patients. The PLR and NLR can be used as additional important information in the prognosis of prostate cancer patients, especially for those who have Gleason scores ≥ 6. Further studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and to explore the potential benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:

Measurement of PLR and NLR should be implemented in clinical practice to increase the accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer patients.
Gleason Score should remain the main indicator for determining the prognosis of prostate cancer patients.
PLR and NLR should be used as additional important information in the prognosis of prostate cancer patients, especially for those who have Gleason scores ≥ 6.
Further studies are needed to confirm the findings of this study and to explore the potential benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice.

Limitations

This study has several limitations, including:

Small sample size: The study had a small sample size, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Selection bias: The study may be subject to selection bias, as the samples were selected from a specific hospital and may not be representative of the general population.
Measurement bias: The study may be subject to measurement bias, as the PLR and NLR were measured using a specific method and may not be accurate.

Future Directions

Future studies should aim to:

Confirm the findings of this study using a larger sample size and a more diverse population.
Explore the potential benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice.
Develop a more comprehensive model that incorporates PLR, NLR, and Gleason Score to predict the prognosis of prostate cancer patients.

Conclusion

Q: What is the Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) and Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR)?

A: The PLR is a ratio of platelets to lymphocytes, while the NLR is a ratio of neutrophils to lymphocytes. Both ratios have been shown to be associated with cancer progression and metastasis.

Q: How are PLR and NLR measured?

A: PLR and NLR are measured by dividing the number of platelets or neutrophils by the number of lymphocytes, respectively. This can be done using a blood test.

Q: What is the Gleason Score?

A: The Gleason Score is a system used to grade the aggressiveness of prostate cancer based on the appearance of cancer cells under a microscope. It ranges from 2 to 10, with higher scores indicating more aggressive cancer.

Q: How do PLR and NLR relate to the Gleason Score?

A: Studies have shown that an increase in PLR and NLR is associated with an increase in Gleason scores in prostate cancer patients. This suggests that PLR and NLR may be useful in predicting the prognosis of prostate cancer patients.

Q: Can PLR and NLR be used as a standalone predictor of prostate cancer prognosis?

A: No, PLR and NLR should be used in conjunction with the Gleason Score to predict the prognosis of prostate cancer patients. The Gleason Score remains the main indicator for determining the prognosis of prostate cancer patients.

Q: What are the benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice?

A: The use of PLR and NLR in clinical practice can help improve the accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis in prostate cancer patients. It can also provide valuable information about the patient's inflammatory response and cancer progression.

Q: Are there any limitations to using PLR and NLR in clinical practice?

A: Yes, there are several limitations to using PLR and NLR in clinical practice, including small sample size, selection bias, and measurement bias.

Q: What are the potential benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice?

A: The potential benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice include improved accuracy of diagnosis and prognosis, better understanding of the patient's inflammatory response and cancer progression, and more informed treatment decisions.

Q: Can PLR and NLR be used to predict the prognosis of other types of cancer?

A: While PLR and NLR have been studied in the context of prostate cancer, their use in predicting the prognosis of other types of cancer is still being researched.

Q: What are the next steps in research on PLR and NLR?

A: Future studies should aim to confirm the findings of this study using a larger sample size and a more diverse population, explore the potential benefits of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice, and develop a more comprehensive model that incorporates PLR, NLR, and Gleason Score to predict the prognosis of prostate cancer patients.

Q: How can healthcare providers incorporate PLR and NLR into clinical practice?

A: Healthcare providers can incorporate PLR and NLR into clinical practice by measuring PLR and NLR in patients with prostate cancer and using the results in conjunction with the Gleason Score to predict the prognosis of patients.

Q: What are the potential implications of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice?

A: The potential implications of using PLR and NLR in clinical practice include improved patient outcomes, better understanding of the patient's inflammatory response and cancer progression, and more informed treatment decisions.