Glasgow Prognostic Score in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Non-small-cell Lung Cancer in Stages IIIb and IV

Abstract

Introduction:Lung cancer is most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) is disease with very low 5-year relative survival rate. For patients with non-small cell lung cancer, roles of current treatments are to prolong survival time and to improve quality of life.Aim:The aim of the work was to compare values of Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) before application of the chemotherapy medication with response to chemotherapy and toxic side effects associated with chemotherapy in patients treated with cisplatin-etopozid (PE) and cisplatin-gemcitabin (PG) in stages IIIb and IV of NSCLC. Testing role of Glasgow Prognostic Score as a possible predictor of response to therapy and toxic side effects of chemotherapeutic protocol was another aim of this work.Patients and methods:This prospective study included 60 patients in stages IIIb or IV of NSCLC, with ECOG ≤ 2. The patients were divided in two groups. First group contained 30 patients treated with chemotherapeutic protocol using cisplatin-etopozid (PE), and the same number of patients in the second group were treated with cisplatin-gemcitabin (PG).Results:Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) evaluation before the chemotherapy inclusion showed values of 1 (43.30:53.30), then 2 (40.00:36.70) and the lowest 0 (16.70:10.00) which supports the pathological values of GPS in developed lung cancer, i.e. most patients had pathological GPS value in both protocols (83.30:90.00). Monitoring of toxic side effects and response to chemotherapy was done after each cycle of treatment.Discussion:Results of this study revealed importance of GPS in selection of patients for treatment with chemotherapy. Patients with lower values of GPS treated using PE chemotherapeutic protocol had weaker response to therapy.Conclusion:Coefficient of correlation for therapy response in both chemotherapeutic protocol, compared with values of GPS before treatment, were not statistically significant, therefore GPS cannot be considered as a predictor of therapeutic on chemotherapy.

Pretreatment Lymphocyte to Monocyte Ratio as a Prognostic Marker for Advanced Pulmonary Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Chemotherapy

“…In contrast, our previous studies demonstrated mGPS as significant prognostic factors for advanced adenocarcinoma with wild-type EGFR and small cell lung cancer [ 16 ]. Several studies also showed clinical utility of mGPS for advanced NSCLC [ 14 , 22 - 25 ]. mGPS is an combined index of systemic inflammation and malnutrition, while LMR and NLR are simple indexes of systemic inflammation.…”

Pretreatment Glasgow prognostic score predicts survival among patients with high PD‐L1 expression administered first‐line pembrolizumab monotherapy for non‐small cell lung cancer

“… 3 The GPS is an independent prognostic marker for advanced NSCLC. 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 Although several studies have reported on the relationship between the GPS and ICI treatment efficacy in NSCLC for different lines of treatment, various ICIs, and various levels of PD‐L1 expression, 14 , 15 no studies have evaluated the relationship between the GPS and the efficacy of first‐line pembrolizumab monotherapy for NSCLC in patients with high PD‐L1 expression. SIR‐based markers can predict the response to ICIs, with NLR predicting the response to ICIs in melanoma, 16 , 17 , 18 renal cell carcinoma, 19 and NSCLC.…”

Lymphocyte to Monocyte Ratio and Modified Glasgow Prognostic Score Predict Prognosis of Lung Adenocarcinoma Without Driver Mutation

“…On the other hand, modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS) is categorized into three classes based on CRP and serum albumin concentration, and represents not only SIR status but also nutritional status. In various cancers, including advanced NSCLC, higher NLR [ 9 - 11 ], lower LMR [ 12 , 13 ] and Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) class 2 [ 14 - 17 ] are associated with poorer prognosis. However, little has been known about these three prognostic tools for a specific genetic subset of adenocarcinoma with wild-type EGFR.…”