ArticleOncology letters2025
Prognostic value of the pretreatment Glasgow prognostic score or modified Glasgow prognostic score in patients with advanced cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and modified GPS (mGPS) have value in evaluating the prognosis of patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). However, with the continuous emergence of new research, the predictive value of GPS and mGPS for immunotherapy deserves further validation. The aim of the present study was to explore the predictive value of GPS or mGPS on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs. Eligible studies were systematically searched using the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Web of Science databases until November 2022. Published data were extracted and the hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. A total of 18 studies with 1,355 patients were included in the present study. Patients were divided into the low GPS/mGPS (0) and high GPS/mGPS (1/2/1-2) groups. Overall, the high GPS group had a shorter OS (HR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.06-4.03) with high heterogeneity, and a shorter PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.55-2.78) with low heterogeneity, compared with the low GPS group. Sensitivity analysis showed that the results were stable and the heterogeneity was significantly reduced from 56.4 to 30.3% after excluding one study. Subgroup analyses by score showed that GPS 1, GPS 2 and GPS 1-2 all had a poorer OS than GPS 0, with low heterogeneity. Overall, the high mGPS group had a poorer OS (HR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.76-3.72) with low heterogeneity, and a poorer PFS (HR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.81-3.60) with high heterogeneity, compared with the low mGPS group. The combined effect size was consistent but the heterogeneity was not eliminated after sensitivity analysis. Subgroup analyses by country and score also showed that the country had no effect on the results and that mGPS 1, mGPS 2 and mGPS 1-2 had a poorer PFS than mGPS 0. Therefore, high GPS and mGPS may be effective biomarkers for predicting the survival of patients with cancer receiving ICIs. Patients with high GPS and mGPS may be considered for supportive treatment; however, large prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.
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.