ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Prognostic role of the Glasgow prognostic score and modified Glasgow prognostic score in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing immunotherapy: a meta-analysis.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOverall Survival (OS) in patients with urological cancers can be predicted by the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and modified GPS (mGPS). However, the predictive value of the GPS and mGPS in individuals with Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) receiving immunotherapy remains inconclusive. The present analysis examined how the GPS and mGPS predict prognosis in RCC patients treated with immunotherapy.
methodsStudies available before March 18, 2025, were systematically searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane. To determine prognostic effects in RCC, Hazard Ratios (HRs) and 95 % Confidence Intervals (95 % CIs) were estimated.
resultsThis meta-analysis encompassed nine eligible studies. Patients with high GPS/mGPS (1/2/1‒2) had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those with low GPS/mGPS (0): OS (HR = 2.48; 95 % CI 2.05-2.99; p < 0.001) and Progression-Free Survival (PFS) (HR = 1.84; 95 % CI 1.61-2.11; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that high-GPS/mGPS RCC patients in Asia (HR = 3.19; 95 % CI 1.63-6.23) and Europe (HR = 2.90; 95 % CI 2.25-3.74) had higher mortality risk compared with those in North America (HR = 1.88; 95 % CI 1.38-2.54). Furthermore, the prognostic impact of GPS/mGPS was more evident in metastatic patients (HR = 3.18; 95 % CI 2.43-4.14; p < 0.001) than in those without metastasis (HR = 1.94; 95 % CI 1.49-2.52; p < 0.001). mGPS-only analysis confirmed poor prognosis (HR = 2.56; 95 % CI 1.95-3.38; p < 0.001); metastatic burden drove heterogeneity (meta-regression p < 0.05).
conclusionGPS/mGPS may serve as effective biomarkers for predicting survival in RCC patients receiving ICI therapy. High GPS and mGPS are associated with increased mortality risk. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the prognostic potential of GPS/mGPS.
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.