ArticleBMC urology2025
Can the systemic immune-inflammation index be used to differentiate benign and malignant pathologies before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy?
Article in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the ability of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), which is tested before transrectal ultrasound-guided systematic prostate biopsy, to predict the histopathology of non-malignant and malignant prostate tissue.
methodsData from 1040 patients who underwent transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy between June 2019 and January 2023 due to high prostate-specific antigen levels or palpation of suspicious prostate cancer nodules via digital rectal examination were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups as biopsy negative and prostate cancer. The SII, platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were compared between the two groups. Statistical analyses were performed using Student's t, Mann-Whitney U, and one-way ANOVA tests, along with ROC curve analysis and DeLong's test to assess diagnostic performance.
resultsThere was no difference between the groups in terms of the SII, PLR, or NLR (p > 0.05). When evaluated according to the European Urology Association risk groups for biochemical recurrence of localized and locally advanced prostate cancer based on systematic biopsy, a significant difference was observed in the SII and PLR markers between the groups with biopsy negative and those with high-risk prostate cancer (p = 0.009, and p < 0.001, respectively). In the ROC analysis, the AUC for the SII was 0.568 (95% CI 0.523-0.628). The best limit value was determined to be 591.4, and for values ≥ 591.4, the sensitivity was determined to be 0.5, and the specificity was 0.571. For the PLR, the AUC was 0.618 (95% CI 0.559-0.676). The best limit value was 139.6, and for values ≥ 139.6, the sensitivity was 0.52, and the specificity was 0.72.
conclusionsHematological inflammatory parameters before prostate biopsy are not effective markers for distinguishing between biopsy negative and malignant pathologies. The inflammatory markers SII and PLR can be used as diagnostic tools in high-risk prostate cancer patients but cannot be used as markers for the detection of pathologies in low- and intermediate-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.