4.7 Article

Optimization of the systemic inflammation-based Glasgow Prognostic Score

Journal

CANCER
Volume 119, Issue 12, Pages 2325-2332

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28018

Keywords

high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; albumin; differential leukocyte count; neoplasia; prognosis; survival analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND The modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS), an inflammation-based prognostic score that uses thresholds of C-reactive protein (> 10 mg/L) and albumin (< 35 g/L), has been found to be independently prognostic of survival in patients with cancer. The objective of the current study was to establish whether the addition of a differential leukocyte count and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement enhanced the prognostic value of the mGPS. METHODS A total of 12,119 patients who had an incidental blood sample taken between 2000 and 2007 for C-reactive protein, albumin, and a differential leukocyte count as well as a diagnosis of cancer made within 2 years were identified. This group was studied for the prognostic value of neutrophil, lymphocyte, and platelet counts. In addition 2742 patients whose blood was sampled after the introduction of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurements were studied for the prognostic value of different thresholds. RESULTS Using cancer-specific survival as an endpoint, the prognostic value of the mGPS (hazard ratio [HR], 2.61; P < .001 [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), 0.695]) was found to be improved by the addition of neutrophil and platelet counts (HR, 4.86; P < .001 [AUC, 0.734]) and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement (> 3 mg/L) (HR, 5.77; P < .001 [AUC, 0.734]). CONCLUSIONS The results of the current study demonstrate that the addition of neutrophil and platelet counts, as well as a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein measurement, enhanced the prognostic value of the mGPS. Cancer 2013;119:2325-2332. (c) 2013 American Cancer Society.

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