ArticleOncology letters2025
Baseline (modified) Glasgow prognostic score as a predictor of therapeutic response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in solid tumors: A systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Article in Oncology letters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reassessing prognostic markers in metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the era of immune checkpoint inhibitors: the enduring value of body composition, nutritional, and inflammatory indices.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Are cancer prognostic factors useful in predicting surgical site infections after spinal instrumentation surgery?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Selecting optimal immunotherapy based on inflammation in stage IV PD-L1 ≥50% gene mutation-negative non-small cell lung cancer: pembrolizumab monotherapy versus combination chemoimmunotherapy.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A systemic analysis was performed to evaluate the prognostic utility of the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the modified (m)GPS in cancer patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Google Scholar databases were searched for entries added until May 1st, 2023, to obtain relevant articles for this study. The analysis examined several clinical outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate and disease control rate (DCR). In this analysis, a total of 38 articles with 3,772 patients were included. The pooled results indicated that patients with high GPS levels had shorter OS [GPS 2 vs. 0, hazard ratio (HR): 4.35, P<0.001; GPS 1 vs. 0, HR: 2.00, P<0.001; GPS 2 vs. 1/0, HR: 2.62, P<0.001; GPS 2/1 vs. 0, HR: 2.60, P<0.001) and PFS (GPS 2 vs. 0, HR: 2.11, P=0.001; GPS 1 vs. 0, HR: 1.33, P=0.001; GPS 2 vs. 1/0, HR: 2.11, P<0.001; GPS 2/1 vs. 0, HR: 1.62, P<0.001], as well as a lower DCR [GPS 2 vs. 1/0, odds ratio (OR): 0.53, P<0.001, GPS 2/1 vs. 0, OR: 0.51, P<0.001]. It was also found that patients with high mGPS levels had poorer OS (mGPS 2 vs. 0, HR: 3.15, P<0.001; mGPS 1 vs. 0, HR: 1.70, P<0.001; mGPS 2 vs. 1/0, HR: 1.95, P=0.049; mGPS 2/1 vs. 0, HR: 3.14, P=0.041; continuous variables, HR: 1.52, P<0.001) and PFS (mGPS 2 vs. 0, HR: 2.70, P<0.001; mGPS 1 vs. 0, HR: 1.74, P=0.016; mGPS 2 vs. 1/0, HR: 1.91, P=0.044; continuous variables, HR: 1.29, P<0.001), and lower DCR (mGPS 2 vs. 1/0, HR: 0.46, P<0.001). In conclusion, the GPS and mGPS were reliable predictors of outcomes in cancer patients treated with ICIs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.