Original Papers - Prostate Open access

Systemic inflammatory indices in biopsy-naïve men with PI-RADS 3 lesions: added value over PSA density and the free-to-total PSA ratio

Authors

Published
9 November 2026
Issue
Early Access
Section
Original Papers - Prostate
DOI
10.4081/aiua.2026.16065

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: A PI-RADS 3 lesion on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) carries an intermediate risk of prostate cancer that existing parameters characterize poorly, and the biopsy decision remains unsettled. This study evaluated whether the pre-biopsy systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and neutrophil- to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) provide diagnostic information beyond two prostate-specific parameters, PSA density (PSAD) and the free-to-total PSA ratio (%fPSA), in biopsy-naïve men.

Methods: Eighty-two biopsy-naïve men with an index PI-RADS 3 lesion, evaluated between January 2022 and December 2024, were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided 12-core systematic biopsy with additional cognitively targeted cores from the index lesion. SII, NLR and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were calculated from pre-biopsy complete blood counts. Cut-off values were determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis at the maximum Youden index, except for PSAD, for which a predefined cut-off of 0.15 ng/mL/mL was used. Independent predictors were identified by multivariable logistic regression.

Results: Prostate cancer was detected in 20 men (24.4%) and clinically significant cancer (ISUP grade group ≥ 2) in 13 (15.9%). Age, total PSA and prostate volume did not differ between men with and without cancer. Men with cancer had a higher PSAD (0.16 ± 0.08 vs. 0.12 ± 0.06 ng/mL/mL, p = 0.024) and a lower %fPSA (14.2 ± 5.8% vs. 19.6 ± 7.4%, p = 0.004). SII and NLR were also significantly higher in the cancer group (p = 0.042 and p = 0.016), whereas PLR did not differ. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was highest for %fPSA (0.743) and PSAD (0.712), and lower for NLR (0.651) and SII (0.634). In multivariable analysis, only PSAD ≥ 0.15 ng/mL/mL (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.12-7.32, p = 0.028) and %fPSA (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.98, p = 0.012) remained independent predictors; SII and NLR did not.

Conclusions: In biopsy-naïve men with a PI-RADS 3 lesion, SII and NLR were higher in those with cancer on biopsy, but they were not independent predictors after adjustment for PSAD and %fPSA. The statistical power of the model to detect a modest effect was limited. In this setting, the biopsy decision should still be based on prostate-specific parameters. SII and NLR may complement these parameters, and their additional value should be tested within multivariable models rather than in isolation.

Keywords

Supporting Agencies

None. This study received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

References

  1. 1. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2024;74:229-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834
  2. 2. Schafer EJ, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Recent patterns and trends in global prostate cancer incidence and mortality: an update. Eur Urol 2025;87:302-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.11.013
  3. 3. Cornford P, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E, et al. EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-ISUP-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer—2024 update. Part I: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol 2024;86:148-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.03.027
  4. 4. Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 2018;378:1767-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993
  5. 5. Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA, et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur Urol 2019;76:340-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.033
  6. 6. Oerther B, Engel H, Bamberg F, et al. Cancer detection rates of the PI-RADSv2.1 assessment categories: systematic review and meta-analysis on lesion level and patient level. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 2022;25:256-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00417-1
  7. 7. Schoots IG, Padhani AR. Risk-adapted biopsy decision based on prostate magnetic resonance imaging and prostate-specific antigen density for enhanced biopsy avoidance in first prostate cancer diagnostic evaluation. BJU Int 2021;127:175-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15277
  8. 8. Drevik J, Dalimov Z, Uzzo R, et al. Utility of PSA density in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions across a large multi-institutional collaborative. Urol Oncol 2022;40:490.e1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.08.003
  9. 9. Wang S, Kozarek J, Russell R, et al. Diagnostic performance of prostate-specific antigen density for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in the era of magnetic resonance imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Oncol 2024;7:189-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euo.2023.08.002
  10. 10. Colotta F, Allavena P, Sica A, et al. Cancer-related inflammation, the seventh hallmark of cancer: links to genetic instability. Carcinogenesis 2009;30:1073-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgp127
  11. 11. Archer M, Dogra N, Kyprianou N. Inflammation as a driver of prostate cancer metastasis and therapeutic resistance. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12:2984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12102984
  12. 12. Kawahara T, Fukui S, Sakamaki K, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts prostatic carcinoma in men undergoing needle biopsy. Oncotarget 2015;6:32169-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.5081
  13. 13. Huang TB, Mao SY, Lu SM, et al. Predictive value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in diagnosis of prostate cancer among men who underwent template-guided prostate biopsy: a STROBE-compliant study. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e5307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005307
  14. 14. Hu B, Yang XR, Xu Y, et al. Systemic immune-inflammation index predicts prognosis of patients after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:6212-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0442
  15. 15. Rajwa P, Schuettfort VM, D'Andrea D, et al. Impact of systemic immune-inflammation index on oncologic outcomes in patients treated with radical prostatectomy for clinically nonmetastatic prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2021;39:785.e19-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2021.05.002
  16. 16. Huang Y, Gao Y, Wu Y, Lin H. Prognostic value of systemic immune-inflammation index in patients with urologic cancers: a meta-analysis. Cancer Cell Int 2020;20:499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12935-020-01590-4
  17. 17. Sonmez G, Demirtas T, Tombul ST, et al. Diagnostic efficiency of systemic immune-inflammation index in fusion prostate biopsy. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed) 2021;45:359-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuroe.2021.04.006
  18. 18. Wang S, Ji Y, Chen Y, et al. The values of systemic immune-inflammation index and neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio in the localized prostate cancer and benign prostate hyperplasia: a retrospective clinical study. Front Oncol 2021;11:812319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.812319
  19. 19. Zhang Y, Chen B, Wang L, et al. Systemic immune-inflammation index is a promising noninvasive marker to predict survival of lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019;98:e13788. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000013788
  20. 20. Menyhart O, Fekete JT, Győrffy B. Inflammation and colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and the systemic inflammation response index (SIRI). Int J Mol Sci 2024;25:8441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25158441
  21. 21. Shui Y, Li M, Su J, et al. Prognostic and clinicopathological significance of systemic immune-inflammation index in pancreatic cancer: a meta-analysis of 2,365 patients. Aging (Albany NY) 2021;13:20585-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203449
  22. 22. Meng L, Yang Y, Hu X, et al. Prognostic value of the pretreatment systemic immune-inflammation index in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Transl Med 2023;21:79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-023-03924-y
  23. 23. Liang CL, Li WD, Wang J. Preoperative immune-inflammation index in predicting the diagnosis and adverse pathological features of prostate cancer. Front Oncol 2025;15:1537542. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2025.1537542
  24. 24. Yao W, Wu J, Kong Y, et al. Associations of systemic immune-inflammation index with high risk for prostate cancer in middle-aged and older US males: a population-based study. Immun Inflamm Dis 2024;12:e1327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/iid3.1327
  25. 25. Huang G, Xiao K, Lin S, Lu X. Association of systemic inflammatory biomarkers with prostate cancer risk: a population-based (NHANES) and clinical validation study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2025;16:1697617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2025.1697617
  26. 26. Song Y, Gu Y, Guo H, et al. Association between neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and benign prostatic hyperplasia: results from the TCLSIH cohort study. J Inflamm Res 2023;16:4857-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/JIR.S431049
  27. 27. Lee JW, Jeong H, Son H, Cho MC. Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio is not a predictor of clinically significant prostate cancer at the prostate biopsy: a large cohort study. Sci Rep 2021;11:14240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93637-3
  28. 28. Murray NP, Fuentealba C, Salazar A, Reyes E. Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio and systemic immune-inflammation index versus circulating prostate cells to predict significant prostate cancer at first biopsy. Turk J Urol 2020;46:115-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2020.19203
  29. 29. Natale C, Koller CR, Greenberg JW, et al. Considering predictive factors in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions. Life (Basel) 2021;11:1432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/life11121432
  30. 30. Fang AM, Shumaker LA, Martin KD, et al. Multi-institutional analysis of clinical and imaging risk factors for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer in men with PI-RADS 3 lesions. Cancer 2022;128:3287-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34355
  31. 31. Ayranci A, Caglar U, Yazili HB, et al. PSA density and lesion volume: key factors in avoiding unnecessary biopsies for PI-RADS 3 lesions. Prostate 2025;85:385-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.24840
  32. 32. Özsoy E, Kutluhan MA, Tokuç E, et al. Predictive impact of PI-RADS 3 lesion volume/total prostate volume ratio in prostate cancer diagnosis in biopsy-naïve patients. Turk J Med Sci 2025;55:1459-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-0144.6103
  33. 33. Heo JE, Han HH, Jang WS, et al. Usefulness of free PSA ratio to enhance detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS <3 and PSA ≤10. Prostate Int 2025;13:112-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prnil.2024.12.001
  34. 34. Zheng Y, Li W, Zhang Y, et al. Prebiopsy bpMRI and hematological parameter-based risk scoring model for predicting outcomes in biopsy-naive men with PSA 4-20 ng/mL. Sci Rep 2022;12:21895. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-26242-7
  35. 35. Antolin A, Mast R, Roson N, et al. Combined radiomics, PI-RADS, and clinical model improve significant prostate cancer prediction and guide biopsy decision. Insights Imaging 2026;17:118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-026-02295-4

Metrics

Citations and online attention from Dimensions, Altmetric and PlumX.

PlumX Metrics

License

Copyright (c) 2026 the Author(s)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.