4.7 Article

Comparison of the prognostic value of inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 107, Issue 6, Pages 988-993

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.354

Keywords

inflammation-based prognostic score; the Glasgow Prognostic Score; hepatocellular carcinoma

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Inflammation-based prognostic scores including the Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS), neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and Prognostic Nutritional Index (PNI) are associated with survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of these inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with HCC. METHODS: In total, 150 patients with newly diagnosed HCC were prospectively evaluated. Patients were divided according to the GPS, modified GPS, NLR, platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Prognostic Index (PI), and PNI. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) was calculated to compare the predictive ability of each of the scoring systems. A univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to identify the clinicopathological variables associated with overall survival. RESULTS: The GPS consistently had a higher AUC value at 6 months (0.768), 12 months (0.787), and 24 months (0.758) in comparison with other inflammation-based prognostic scores. A multivariate analysis showed that the GPS was independently associated with overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the GPS, an inflammation-based prognostic score, is an independent marker of poor prognosis in patients with HCC and is superior to the other inflammation-based prognostic scores in terms of prognostic ability. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 107, 988-993. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.354 www.bjcancer.com Published online 9 August 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available