4.3 Review

Role of systemic inflammatory response markers in urological malignancy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 1, Pages 31-47

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13801

Keywords

cancer; inflammation; malignancy; marker; urologic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The systemic inflammatory response is associated with survival in patients with a variety of cancers. This inflammatory response is measured in the peripheral blood, and can be monitored using two categories of indices: concentration of specific serum proteins (albumin, C-reactive protein) and differential blood cell count (neutrophils, lymphocytes and platelets). Furthermore, combinations of these indices, such as the Glasgow Prognostic Score, which consists of the serum C-reactive protein and albumin level; the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio; the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; and the prognostic nutritional index, which is based on peripheral blood lymphocyte count and serum albumin level, have also been evaluated and compared in cancer research. To date, there are hundreds of studies that have shown the prognostic value of systemic inflammatory response markers in patients with urological cancer. Most studies have evaluated the prognostic and predictive role of the pretreatment value of the markers, although some have focused on the role of the post-treatment value at specific points during the clinical course. The advantages of systemic inflammatory response markers are that they are easily measurable and inexpensive in the clinical setting. However, it is important to consider how clinicians use these markers in clinical practice. The present review provides a concise overview regarding systemic inflammatory markers in urological cancers, specifically C-reactive protein, Glasgow Prognostic Score/modified Glasgow Prognostic Score, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and prognostic nutritional index.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available