Table 2.
Prognostic importance of PLR in testicular cancer patients.
| Author (Year) |
Reference | Patients (n) | Study Design | Cut-Off Value | Main Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gokcen (2018) |
[33] | 39 | Cross-sectional | - | PLR was significantly elevated in TC patients compared with the control group |
| Sahin (2019) |
[44] | 120 | Cross-sectional | - | There was no statistically significant difference in PLR value between TC patients and the control group |
| Imamoglu (2019) | [45] | 112 | Retrospective cohort |
104 | PLR > 104 was significantly associated with advanced disease (Stage II + III) in non-seminoma patients |
| Herraiz-Raya (2019) | [38] | 164 | Retrospective cohort |
150 | PLR > 150 was associated with a greater likelihood of disease progression, advanced disease (stage II and III), and residual disease PLR values in seminoma patients were statistically significantly higher compared with non-seminoma patients |
| Yoshinaga (2020) | [47] | 63 | Retrospective cohort |
- | High PLR was linked with poor OS only in univariate analysis |
| Cursano (2020) | [42] | 62 | Retrospective cohort |
170 | PLR > 170 was associated with a favorable response to CHT |
| Peksa (2021) |
[46] | 180 | Retrospective cohort |
212 | PLR > 212 was associated with an advanced stage of disease and the presence of nodal and distant metastasis PLR > 212 was correlated with poor EFS |
PLR, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio; TC, testicular cancer; EFS, event-free survival; CHT, chemotherapy; OS, overall survival.