The Relationship Between Lymphocyte Subtypes with Clinicopathological Features and Prognosis of Prostate Cancer in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

Objective: The immune system has an essential role in the development of cancer by showing both anti-tumor and pro-tumor activities. Understanding the immune func- tion of patients with malignancy is of clinical importance for the evaluation, treatment, and prognosis of the disease. We aimed to evaluate lymphocyte subtypes in peripheral blood samples of prostate cancer patients and their relationship with clinicopathologi- cal features and prognosis.

Methods: One hundred thirty-seven patients who underwent open radical prosta- tectomy were included in our study. The percentages of CD3+T lymphocyte, CD19+ B lymphocyte, CD16/56 natural killer cells, CD4+ helper T lymphocyte, CD8+ cytotoxic T lymphocyte, and CD45 total lymphocyte were evaluated for each patient using the blood sample taken into a hemogram tube before surgery.

Results: The pathological stage was T2 for 64 of the cases and T3 for 73. The mean follow-up period of the patients was 12.81 ± 6.20 months. The CD3+/CD4+ counts of the patients with pathological stage T2 were found to be statistically significantly higher than stage T3. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the prostate-specific antigen levels and CD3+/CD4+ percentages of the patients. There was no statistical significance between the percentages of lymphocyte subtypes and the presence of surgical margin, biochemical recurrence, adjuvant therapy, and cancer upgrade.

Conclusion: We consider that the increase in the pathological stage and prostate-spe- cific antigen value and the decrease in the number of CD4+ T lymphocyte subtypes may be prognostic markers in prostate cancer patients.

Cite this article as: Sendogan F, Turan T, Erman H, et al. The relationship between lymphocyte subtypes with clinicopathological features and prognosis of prostate cancer in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Urol Res Pract. 2023;49(4):253-258.