Diagnostic Efficiency of Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value to Predict Prostate Cancer in Patients with Prostate-Specific Antigen between 4 and 20 ng/mL

Introduction: To evaluate the predictive value of the pan-immune-inflammation value (PIV) and other systemic inflammatory markers, including the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (dNLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), for prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa) in patients with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) value between 4 and 20 ng/mL. Patients and Methods: The clinical data of 319 eligible patients who underwent prostate biopsies in our hospital from August 2019 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. CSPCa was defined as a “Gleason grade group of ≥2”. A univariable logistic regression analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis were conducted to analyze the association between the PIV, SII, MLR, and PCa/CSPCa. For the inflammatory indicators included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, we constructed models by combining the separate inflammatory indicator and other significant predictors and compared the area under the curve (AUC). A nomogram based on the PIV for PCa was developed. Results: We included 148 PCa patients (including 127 CSPCa patients) and 171 non-PCa patients in total. The patients with PCa were older, had higher MLR, SII, PIV, and total PSA (TPSA) values, consumed more alcohol, and had lower free/total PSA (f/T) values than the other patients. Compared with the non-CSPCa group, the CSPCa group had higher BMI, MLR, PIV, TPSA values, consumed more alcohol, and had lower f/T values. The univariable regression analysis showed that drinking history, higher MLR, PIV, and TPSA values, and lower f/T values were independent predictors of PCa and CSPCa. The AUC of the PIV in the multivariable logistic regression model was higher than those of the MLR and SII. In addition, the diagnostic value of the PIV + PSA for PCa was better than the PSA value. However, the diagnostic value for CSPCa was not significantly different from that of using PSA alone, while the AUC of the PIV + PSA was higher than the individual indicator of the PSA value. Conclusions: Our study suggests that for the patients who were diagnosed with PSA values between 4 and 20 ng/mL, the PIV and MLR are potential indicators for predicting PCa and CSPCa. In addition, our study indicates that the new inflammatory index PIV has clinical value in the diagnosis of PCa and CSPCa.