
Chinese General Practice ›› 2026, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (14): 1878-1882.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2025.0157
• Article • Previous Articles Next Articles
Received:2025-10-10
Revised:2025-12-25
Published:2026-05-15
Online:2026-04-14
Contact:
LI Zhen
通讯作者:
李振
作者简介:作者贡献:
李振负责研究思路设计、研究过程的实施、数据收集、统计学分析、论文起草及最终版本修订,对论文整体负责;王成勇提出研究思路、设计研究方案、具体观点或方法。
基金资助:
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.chinagp.net/EN/10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2025.0157
| 组别 | 例数 | 年龄 | 糖尿病史 | 高血压史 | 冠心病史 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥60岁 | <60岁 | 是 | 否 | 是 | 否 | 是 | 否 | |||
| 预后良好组 | 59 | 53(89.83) | 6(10.17) | 13(22.03) | 46(77.97) | 16(27.12) | 43(72.88) | 13(22.03) | 46(77.97) | |
| 预后不良组 | 30 | 29(96.67) | 1(3.33) | 7(23.33) | 23(76.67) | 17(56.67) | 13(43.33) | 10(33.33) | 20(66.67) | |
| χ2值 | 1.283 | 0.019 | 7.442 | 1.325 | ||||||
| P值 | 0.257 | 0.890 | 0.006 | 0.250 | ||||||
| 组别 | 局部情况 | 骨转移 | 淋巴结转移 | 远处转移 | 转移部位 | |||||
| 有神经侵犯 | 无神经侵犯 | 有 | 无 | 有 | 无 | 有 | 无 | 单部位 | 多部位 | |
| 预后良好组 | 30(50.85) | 29(49.15) | 33(55.93) | 26(44.07) | 15(25.42) | 44(74.58) | 4(6.78) | 55(93.22) | 49(83.05) | 10(16.95) |
| 预后不良组 | 20(66.67) | 10(33.33) | 18(60.00) | 12(40.00) | 8(26.67) | 22(73.33) | 5(16.67) | 25(83.33) | 22(73.33) | 8(26.67) |
| χ2值 | 2.022 | 0.135 | 0.016 | 2.139 | 1.164 | |||||
| P值 | 0.155 | 0.714 | 0.899 | 0.144 | 0.281 | |||||
Table 1 Comparison of general data between the good prognosis group and the poor prognosis group
| 组别 | 例数 | 年龄 | 糖尿病史 | 高血压史 | 冠心病史 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ≥60岁 | <60岁 | 是 | 否 | 是 | 否 | 是 | 否 | |||
| 预后良好组 | 59 | 53(89.83) | 6(10.17) | 13(22.03) | 46(77.97) | 16(27.12) | 43(72.88) | 13(22.03) | 46(77.97) | |
| 预后不良组 | 30 | 29(96.67) | 1(3.33) | 7(23.33) | 23(76.67) | 17(56.67) | 13(43.33) | 10(33.33) | 20(66.67) | |
| χ2值 | 1.283 | 0.019 | 7.442 | 1.325 | ||||||
| P值 | 0.257 | 0.890 | 0.006 | 0.250 | ||||||
| 组别 | 局部情况 | 骨转移 | 淋巴结转移 | 远处转移 | 转移部位 | |||||
| 有神经侵犯 | 无神经侵犯 | 有 | 无 | 有 | 无 | 有 | 无 | 单部位 | 多部位 | |
| 预后良好组 | 30(50.85) | 29(49.15) | 33(55.93) | 26(44.07) | 15(25.42) | 44(74.58) | 4(6.78) | 55(93.22) | 49(83.05) | 10(16.95) |
| 预后不良组 | 20(66.67) | 10(33.33) | 18(60.00) | 12(40.00) | 8(26.67) | 22(73.33) | 5(16.67) | 25(83.33) | 22(73.33) | 8(26.67) |
| χ2值 | 2.022 | 0.135 | 0.016 | 2.139 | 1.164 | |||||
| P值 | 0.155 | 0.714 | 0.899 | 0.144 | 0.281 | |||||
| 组别 | 例数 | NLR | PLR | SII | MLR | PSA | FPSA | FPSA/PSA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 预后良好组 | 59 | 2.62(2.14,3.46) | 152.15(114.84,192.48) | 464.72(343.37,782.30) | 0.27(0.20,0.38) | 31.02(12.93,77.93) | 3.24(1.32,8.75) | 0.10(0.06,0.17) |
| 预后不良组 | 30 | 4.15(3.32,5.35) | 131.02(92.55,194.70) | 699.34(630.72,904.81) | 0.49(0.41,0.61) | 36.76(15.13,100.00) | 2.40(0.60,9.78) | 0.10(0.04,0.17) |
| Z值 | -5.130 | -1.141 | -3.689 | -5.669 | -0.595 | -0.521 | -0.252 | |
| P值 | <0.001 | 0.254 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.552 | 0.602 | 0.801 |
Table 2 Comparison of laboratory indexes between the good prognosis group and the poor prognosis group
| 组别 | 例数 | NLR | PLR | SII | MLR | PSA | FPSA | FPSA/PSA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 预后良好组 | 59 | 2.62(2.14,3.46) | 152.15(114.84,192.48) | 464.72(343.37,782.30) | 0.27(0.20,0.38) | 31.02(12.93,77.93) | 3.24(1.32,8.75) | 0.10(0.06,0.17) |
| 预后不良组 | 30 | 4.15(3.32,5.35) | 131.02(92.55,194.70) | 699.34(630.72,904.81) | 0.49(0.41,0.61) | 36.76(15.13,100.00) | 2.40(0.60,9.78) | 0.10(0.04,0.17) |
| Z值 | -5.130 | -1.141 | -3.689 | -5.669 | -0.595 | -0.521 | -0.252 | |
| P值 | <0.001 | 0.254 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.552 | 0.602 | 0.801 |
| 指标 | β | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR值 | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高血压病史 | 0.591 | 0.669 | 0.780 | 0.377 | 1.806 | 0.487~6.704 |
| NLR | 0.651 | 0.312 | 4.344 | 0.037 | 1.917 | 1.040~3.535 |
| SII | 0.006 | 0.002 | 8.174 | 0.004 | 1.006 | 1.002~1.010 |
| MLR | 5.205 | 2.373 | 4.813 | 0.028 | 182.211 | 1.742~19 063.546 |
| 常数项 | -9.183 | 2.036 | 20.353 | <0.001 | 0.000 | — |
Table 3 Multivariate Logistic regression analysis of influencing factors for poor prognosis in patients with advanced PCa
| 指标 | β | SE | Wald χ2值 | P值 | OR值 | 95%CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 高血压病史 | 0.591 | 0.669 | 0.780 | 0.377 | 1.806 | 0.487~6.704 |
| NLR | 0.651 | 0.312 | 4.344 | 0.037 | 1.917 | 1.040~3.535 |
| SII | 0.006 | 0.002 | 8.174 | 0.004 | 1.006 | 1.002~1.010 |
| MLR | 5.205 | 2.373 | 4.813 | 0.028 | 182.211 | 1.742~19 063.546 |
| 常数项 | -9.183 | 2.036 | 20.353 | <0.001 | 0.000 | — |
| 变量 | AUC | 95%CI | P值 | 截断值 | 约登指数 | 灵敏度(%) | 特异度(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NLR | 0.834 | 0.746~0.922 | <0.001 | 3.57 | 0.581 | 73.33 | 84.75 |
| SII | 0.740 | 0.638~0.842 | <0.001 | 539.01 | 0.560 | 96.67 | 59.32 |
| MLR | 0.869 | 0.797~0.940 | <0.001 | 0.41 | 0.597 | 76.67 | 83.05 |
| 联合 | 0.926 | 0.874~0.978 | <0.001 | — | 0.715 | 83.33 | 88.14 |
Table 4 Analysis of the value of NLR, SII, and MLR in the prognostic diagnosis of advanced PCa
| 变量 | AUC | 95%CI | P值 | 截断值 | 约登指数 | 灵敏度(%) | 特异度(%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NLR | 0.834 | 0.746~0.922 | <0.001 | 3.57 | 0.581 | 73.33 | 84.75 |
| SII | 0.740 | 0.638~0.842 | <0.001 | 539.01 | 0.560 | 96.67 | 59.32 |
| MLR | 0.869 | 0.797~0.940 | <0.001 | 0.41 | 0.597 | 76.67 | 83.05 |
| 联合 | 0.926 | 0.874~0.978 | <0.001 | — | 0.715 | 83.33 | 88.14 |
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
牟思博, 周昌明, 郑莹. 2025年美国癌症统计数据解读及对中国癌症防治工作的借鉴意义[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2025, 35(6): 523-530. DOI:10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2025.06.001.
|
| [6] |
|
| [7] |
卓涛, 杨蝴蝶, 安恒庆, 等. 转移性前列腺癌患者初始血清睾酮水平与预后相关指标的关系[J]. 现代泌尿外科杂志, 2024, 29(6): 514-520. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1009-8291.2024.06.009.
|
| [8] |
茆飞, 杨超, 冀鲁.免疫细胞亚群与前列腺癌患者预后的关联性研究[J].中华男科学杂志, 2024, 30(4): 321-325.
|
| [9] |
单锋芝, 高小超, 刘进亮, 等. 前列腺癌患者血清PSA和总睾酮水平变化与病理Gleason评分和预后的相关性[J]. 中国卫生工程学, 2024, 23(1): 101-102, 105.
|
| [10] |
孙琦景, 吴春磊, 何岩, 等. 前列腺癌患者miRNA-218表达水平与临床-病理特征及预后的关系[J]. 中国性科学, 2024, 33(5): 22-26. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-1993.2024.05.006.
|
| [11] |
张宇, 王宏权, 李俞润, 等. miR-146a、miR-23b水平与前列腺癌患者术前临床分期及预后的关系[J]. 分子诊断与治疗杂志, 2024, 16(4): 774-777, 782.
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
|
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
颜玲玲, 吴坚芬, 顾彬彬, 等. 血小板与淋巴细胞比值和中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值对早期胃癌诊断的预测价值[J]. 中华消化杂志, 2022, 42(3): 163-170. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn311367-20210428-00250.
|
| [18] |
李伟, 曹嘉芮, 贾存乐, 等. 中性粒细胞与淋巴细胞比值和血小板与淋巴细胞比值在恶性肿瘤中的应用进展[J].中国老年学杂志, 2024, 34(15): 3826-3830.
|
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
|
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
|
| [23] |
|
| [24] |
|
| [25] |
|
| [26] |
|
| [27] |
|
| [1] | LI Jiawei, GAO Xinyi, GE Aoqi, LI Juanjuan, YUAN Beibei. Demand and Associated Factors for Integrated Medical Care and Preventive Services among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(21): 3028-3039. |
| [2] | AN Yanhong, WANG Shidong, LI Xiaoran, GUO Jiayang, WANG Zhe, SHA Peilin, MENG Yijun, LI Xiaoxuan, SHI Xue, YU Zexing, XIAO Yonghua. Study on Risk Factors and Nomogram Prediction Model for Diabetic Kidney Disease: Based on Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Technology [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(21): 2995-3003. |
| [3] | SUN Songpeng, XU Fangfang, LONG Junhong, WANG Zhanjun, CAO Qiaorong, WAN Weiping, LI Tianyu, LIN Mei, TIAN Ying, SHI Bin, WU Yao, WANG Jianguo, LI Xinjian, HUO Xingxiao, LIANG Longyu, CHU Hongchuan, ZHOU Yangyang, ZHANG Zhiyun, ZHANG Shuxin, JIA Shan. Construction and Clinical Value of the Hemorrhoids Severity and Surgical Risk Prediction Score [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2879-2886. |
| [4] | LI Feng, HU Changhao, LUO Xu. Progress in the Study of Influencing Factors and Intervention Strategies of Mental Health in Elderly Patients with Multiple Chronic Conditions [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(20): 2816-2828. |
| [5] | ZHANG Huifang, CHEN Cunchuan, FAN Boyang, SUN Wenning, WANG Yingjie, ZHANG Ao, ZHAO Yang, WANG Haipeng. Study on the Service Capability of Primary Care Doctors to Integrate Medical and Preventive Services and Its Influencing Factors in Shandong Province [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2711-2716. |
| [6] | TANG Lijuan, QI Qi, ZHANG Fan, GAO Yifu, CAO Yajing, YUE Fujuan, GAO Jinchai, LIU Xiaoli. Characterisation of the Prevalence of Overweight/Obesity among Residents Aged 18-44 Years in Hebei Province in 2013 and 2020 [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(19): 2695-2704. |
| [7] | LIU Fang, LIU Weinan, XIANG Yuanyue, LU Cheng, ZHU Binhai. Factors Influencing Work-related Flow among "3+2" Order-oriented Assistant General Practitioners in Jiangsu Province [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(18): 2454-2460. |
| [8] | ZHAI Naisheng, HUANG Lihua, ZHANG Ye. Research on the Predictive Ability of Isokinetic Strength Testing for Knee Joint Extension of 1-repetition Maximum [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(17): 2382-2386. |
| [9] | CHEN Yan, SHEN Dequan, SHENG Renlei, CHANG Yujie, YANG Jiaqi, DING Jie, SUN Zhifang, WANG Dahui. Influencing Factors and Importance Ranking of the Utilization of Primary-level Traditional Chinese Medicine Preventive and Health Care Services for the Elderly [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2182-2189. |
| [10] | YU Shan, CHE Yajie, SUBIYINUER· Maimaiti, GUO Kaiyang, FENG Xingxing, YAN Ping. A Comparative Study on the Current Situation and Influencing Factors of Subjective Cognitive Decline among Urban and Rural Elderly People in Xinjiang [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2227-2233. |
| [11] | CHEN Bihua, LIN Qiyi, LI Wuhua, SU Jin, TU Liping, SHI Lan, DING Xiaoqin, YI Chuntao. The Influencing Factors and Mechanisms of the Work Output Level of Family Doctor Teams from the Perspective of Team Effectiveness [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2167-2173. |
| [12] | YU Chao, SONG Lihua, WANG Linyan, LU Yunping, WANG Linyang, CUI Wei. The Functional Outcomes and Influencing Factors in Patients with First-episode Major Depressive Disorder after 7 Years [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2221-2226. |
| [13] | LUO Yutong, LI Jing. The HPV Vaccine Coverage and Its Influencing Factors among the Eligible Population in China Based on a Geographically Weighted Regression Model [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2234-2243. |
| [14] | FU Mingyuan, YU Xiaoyi, GE Caiying, KONG Min. Impaired Awareness of Hypoglycemia: Prevalence and Determinants among Community-based Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(16): 2252-2258. |
| [15] | LIU Fan, CHEN Qiuyu, LI Jing. Development and Validation of a Nighttime Hypertension Screening Model for Subclinical High-risk Populations: a Single-center Cohort Study [J]. Chinese General Practice, 2026, 29(15): 1998-2005. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||