Colorectal polyps are bumpy lesions on the surface of the intestine. In recent years, many studies have found that colorectal polyps are significantly associated with CRC, and the removal of these polyps has been shown to reduce the risk of developing CRC. Adenomatous polyps are currently recognized as precancerous lesions in CRC, and 67.1% of CRCs are derived from adenomatous polyps. The association between adenomas and carcinomas, the incidental discovery of co-benign adenomas in CRCs, and ras mutations and chromosomal changes in benign adenomas and carcinomas also support the adenoma-carcinoma sequence[10]. The course of CRC development occurs roughly through the path of proliferative adenoma-tubular adenoma-villous adenoma-early carcinoma-invasive carcinoma [11]. Since most screening and intervention programs for colon cancer target the elimination of traditional adenomas, the reduction rate of CRCs using our current approach can be as high as 65%[2]. To maintain relatively normal intestinal function and improve the postoperative quality of life, minimally invasive treatment, including endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), has become a routine approach for the treatment of colorectal polyps [12]. After the resection of colorectal neoplasia, it is recommended that colonoscopy be performed once a year until all colorectal polyps, including small lesions, are completely eliminated and once every 3 years thereafter[13].
Three types of adenomatous polyps have been defined: tubular adenomas, villous adenomas, and tubulovillous adenomas. It is estimated that the average annual conversion rate in patients with adenomas is 0.25% and that the annual conversion rates for large (≥ 10 mm) adenomas, villous adenomas, and severely stunted adenomas are 3%, 17%, and 37%, respectively[14]. One study showed that approximately one-third of cancers are derived from adenomatous polyps and that one-third are derived from villous adenomas. Given the much higher incidence of adenomatous polyps, these numbers suggest that villous growth patterns are more likely to lead to malignancy compared with typical adenomatous polyps[11]. By colonoscopy, only a general diagnosis according to the shape of the polyp can be made, whereas complete polyp resection and pathological examination can determine the nature of the polyp. All adenomas are pathologically classified by a pathologist[15], and pathologic analysis is the "gold standard" of diagnosis. Biopsies should not be performed in cases of polypectomy or EMR because of the increased medical costs. However, biopsy of a lesion suspected to be T1 carcinoma may be acceptable because histological information helps decide the appropriate treatment strategies. For superficial lesions (flat or sunken lesions), biopsy should not be performed before endoscopic resection, as false non-presentation may occur after EMR injection due to submucosal fibrosis [16]. Risk, cost, and effectiveness should be considered when discussing different options [17]. The advantage of a full colonoscopy, of course, is that the entire colon can be evaluated while a biopsy or polypectomy is performed. However, colonoscopy and biopsy are costly and time- intensive. Many markers have been investigated including carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19 − 9 (CA 19 − 9). Due to the poor sensitivity and specificity of CEA detection methods, monitoring CEA in CRC provides only a modest improvement in patient prognosis. CA 19 − 9 level has also been shown to be 80% effective in the detection of pancreatic cancer[18]. No additional biomarkers have been found to be associated with colorectal polyps. Therefore, a new, reliable and economically feasible biomarker is urgently needed to predict the histological types of colorectal polyps.
The link between inflammation and malignancy has been well established since Virchow first proposed it in 1863[19]. Inflammation causes systemic changes in the tumor microenvironment that facilitate tumor progression. Cancer and inflammation are closely related, and both local and systemic changes in inflammatory parameters are observed in cancer patients[20]. The PLR has been gradually recognized as a new inflammatory marker and an influential factor that affects the prognosis of malignant tumors. Lymphocytes, including subsets such as CD8 + and CD3 + T cells, are associated with a good prognosis in patients with certain tumors[21]. The upregulation of circulating platelets promotes tumor progression through the secretion of growth factors by activated platelets, which protects tumor cells from immune attack, promotes the growth of tumor cells near the endothelium, and enhances tumor proliferation and mobility[22]. With regard to the PLR, previous studies have shown that some platelet receptors, such as GP1b/IX/V and P-selectin, are associated with cancer growth since they promote angiogenesis through expression of cytokines and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and because they promote tumor progression[23]. CRP is one of the most commonly used indicators in hospital settings to assess the strength of the systemic inflammatory response because of its high sensitivity, good specificity, and high repeatability[24]. CRP plays an important role in the development and/or prognosis of a variety of cancers, including esophageal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and non-small cell lung cancer[25–28].
Ample evidence supports the prognostic value of PLR and CRP in some solid tumors. Koji et al [29] recruited 141 patients who underwent curative resection for HCC and reported that the preoperative serum CRP level was an independent and important indicator of poor prognosis and early recurrence in HCC patients. In a retrospective study[27] involving 216 patients with HCC who were treated with resection or nonsurgical treatment, a CRP level > 1 mg/dl was an independent risk factor for HCC recurrence, with a 5-year recurrence rate of 27.4% vs. 16.4% (HR 2.33; 95% CI 1.13–4.83; P = 0.022). Lian et al[30] retrospectively analyzed 162 patients with resectable gastric cancer and divided them into groups according to the median preoperative PLR value (PLR low: < 208 or PLR high: >208). PLR measurements can provide important diagnostic and prognostic information for patients with resectable gastric cancer. Georgiana et al[8] retrospectively analyzed 391 patients who were admitted to the hospital and who underwent surgery for complicated CRC. In the multivariate regression analysis, the increase in the PLR resulted in an increased risk of death (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.024; 95% CI = 1.019.1.029; P value = 0.000000), and the PLR was thus considered an independent risk factor. However, few articles mention PLR and CRP as predictors of colorectal polyps. A study of 60 patients with colorectal adenomatous polyps showed that serum CRP concentrations were higher in patients with adenomas located proximally (8.674 ± 9.19 µg/ml) compared with the control group (4.94 ± 5.53 microg/ml; P < 0.05) and that CRP levels may be associated with the development of tumors in the proximal part of the colon. To date, no study has reported the relationships among PLR, CRP and the histopathological types of colorectal polyps.
In this study, we first discussed the significance of the PLR and CRP levels in their ability to predict the histopathological type of colorectal polyps. The results showed that in the tubular adenoma group, the platelet counts and CRP levels were higher than those in the tubulovillous adenoma group and the lymphocyte counts were lower than those in the tubulovillous adenoma group, but the differences were not statistically significant. Based on this result, we speculate that the detection of these factors in colorectal polyps may not be sensitive enough to reflect these single differences during the early stages of tumor progression. However, the PLR amplifies the differences in the single distribution. Here, we found a significant difference in the PLR distribution between tubular and tubulovillous adenomas. Since no study has assessed the correlation between the PLR or CRP level and the histopathological type of colorectal polyps, ROC curves were used to determine the cut-off values. In the univariate and multivariate analyses, both low PLR and low CRP were associated with the histopathological types, while low PLR and low CRP were shown to be independent risk factors.
Various studies have recommended different cut-off points for the PLR (between 106 and 130) and CRP (approximately 1 mg/ml). In this study, the cut-off point of the PLR was 113.32, while the cut-off point of CRP was 0.39[6, 31, 27, 4]. Various methods of calculating PLR and CRP, and different, nonstandardized study populations may have contributed to these differences.
This study has several limitations. First, this is a retrospective analysis of patients at a single center. Second, our study was limited to patients whose histopathological types were confirmed as tubular adenoma or tubulovillous adenoma, and we did not analyze patients with other pathological types of colorectal polyps, and thus, our sample size was small. The second limitation was that we assessed only preoperative laboratory values. Further studies are needed to understand the role of the PLR and CRP alone or in combination with other inflammatory biomarkers in predicting the histopathological type of colorectal polyps.