» Articles » PMID: 38450184

Predictive Value of Controlling Nutritional Status Score for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

Overview
Journal Front Oncol
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Mar 7
PMID 38450184
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study aims to explore the predictive value of the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis.

Methods: The data of 114 patients who underwent prostate needle biopsies from June 2020 to December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The relationship between CONUT score and various clinical factors as well as PCa diagnosis was evaluated.

Results: The pathological results classified patients into the PCa (n = 38) and non-PCa (n = 76) groups. Compared with the non-PCa group, the PCa group exhibited statistically significant differences in age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), the proportion of PI-RADS ≥ 3 in mpMRI, and the CONUT score, prostate volume, lymphocyte count, and total cholesterol concentration ( < 0.05). ROC curve analyses indicated the diagnostic accuracy as follows: age (AUC = 0.709), prostate volume (AUC = 0.652), PSA (AUC = 0.689), PSAD (AUC = 0.76), PI-RADS ≥ 3 in mpMRI (AUC = 0.846), and CONUT score (AUC = 0.687). When CONUT score was combined with PSA and PSAD, AUC increased to 0.784. The AUC of CONUT score combined with PSA, PSAD, and mpMRI was 0.881, indicates a higher diagnostic value. Based on the optimal cut-off value of CONUT score, compared with the low CONUT score group, the high CONUT score group has a higher positive rate of PCa diagnosis ( < 0.05).

Conclusion: CONUT score is an excellent auxiliary index for PCa diagnosis in addition to the commonly used PSA, PSAD, and mpMRI in clinical practice. Further prospective trials with a larger sample size are warranted to confirm the present study findings.

References
1.
Kaynar M, Yildirim M, Gul M, Kilic O, Ceylan K, Goktas S . Benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostate cancer differentiation via platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Cancer Biomark. 2015; 15(3):317-23. DOI: 10.3233/CBM-150458. View

2.
Kark J, Smith A, HAMES C . Serum retinol and the inverse relationship between serum cholesterol and cancer. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1982; 284(6310):152-4. PMC: 1495538. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.284.6310.152. View

3.
McMillan D, Elahi M, Sattar N, Angerson W, Johnstone J, McArdle C . Measurement of the systemic inflammatory response predicts cancer-specific and non-cancer survival in patients with cancer. Nutr Cancer. 2002; 41(1-2):64-9. DOI: 10.1080/01635581.2001.9680613. View

4.
Zhang W, Wu Y, Zhang Z, Guo Y, Wang R, Wang L . Controlling Nutritional Status score: A new prognostic indicator for patients with oligometastatic prostate cancer. Curr Probl Cancer. 2019; 43(5):461-470. DOI: 10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2019.02.001. View

5.
Maia Lemos P, Oliveira F, Caran E . Nutritional status of children and adolescents at diagnosis of hematological and solid malignancies. Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter. 2014; 36(6):420-3. PMC: 4318456. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjhh.2014.06.001. View