Impact of the preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score on disease outcome after radical cystectomy for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder.


Journal

Minerva urology and nephrology
ISSN: 2724-6442
Titre abrégé: Minerva Urol Nephrol
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101777299

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jun 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 12 6 2021
medline: 26 5 2022
entrez: 11 6 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To investigate the predictive and prognostic value of the preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) treated with radical cystectomy (RC). We conducted a retrospective analysis of an established multicenter database consisting of 4335 patients who were treated with RC±adjuvant chemotherapy for UCB between 1979 and 2012. The mGPS of each patient was calculated on the basis of preoperative serum C-reactive protein and albumin. Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed. The discriminatory ability of the models was assessed by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) and concordance-indices (C-Index). The additional clinical net-benefit was assessed using the decision curve analysis (DCA). A mGPS of 0, 1, and 2 was observed in 3,158 (72.8%), 1,020 (23.5%), and 157 (3.6%) patients, respectively. On multivariable logistic regression analyses, mGPS of 1 or 2 were associated with an increased risk of pT3/4 disease at RC (OR 1.25, P=0.004 and OR 2.58, SP<0.001, respectively) and/or lymph node metastasis (OR 1.7, P<0.001 and OR 3.9, P<0.001, respectively). Addition of the mGPS to a predictive model based on preoperatively available variables improved its accuracy for prediction of lymph node metastasis (change of AUC +3.7%, P<0.001). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, mGPS of 1 or 2 remained associated with worse recurrence-free survival (HR 1.14, P=0.03 and HR 1.89 P<0.001, respectively), cancer-specific survival (HR 1.16, P=0.032 and HR 2.1, P<0.001, respectively) and overall survival (HR 1.5, P=0.007 and HR 1.92 P<0.001, respectively) compared to mGPS of 0. The additional discriminatory ability of the mGPS for prognosis of survival outcomes in separate models that included either established pre- or postoperative variables did not improve the C-Index by a prognostically relevant degree (change of C-Index <2% for all models). On DCA, the inclusion of the mGPS did not meaningfully improve the net-benefit for clinical decision-making regarding survival outcomes. We confirmed that an elevated mGPS is an independent risk factor for non-organ confined disease and poor survival outcomes in patients with UCB undergoing RC. However, the mGPS showed little value in improving the discriminatory ability of predictive and prognostic models that relied on either pre- or postoperative clinicopathological variables. The discriminatory ability of this biomarker in the age of immunotherapy warrants further evaluation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
To investigate the predictive and prognostic value of the preoperative modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder (UCB) treated with radical cystectomy (RC).
METHODS METHODS
We conducted a retrospective analysis of an established multicenter database consisting of 4335 patients who were treated with RC±adjuvant chemotherapy for UCB between 1979 and 2012. The mGPS of each patient was calculated on the basis of preoperative serum C-reactive protein and albumin. Uni- and multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were performed. The discriminatory ability of the models was assessed by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristics curves (AUC) and concordance-indices (C-Index). The additional clinical net-benefit was assessed using the decision curve analysis (DCA).
RESULTS RESULTS
A mGPS of 0, 1, and 2 was observed in 3,158 (72.8%), 1,020 (23.5%), and 157 (3.6%) patients, respectively. On multivariable logistic regression analyses, mGPS of 1 or 2 were associated with an increased risk of pT3/4 disease at RC (OR 1.25, P=0.004 and OR 2.58, SP<0.001, respectively) and/or lymph node metastasis (OR 1.7, P<0.001 and OR 3.9, P<0.001, respectively). Addition of the mGPS to a predictive model based on preoperatively available variables improved its accuracy for prediction of lymph node metastasis (change of AUC +3.7%, P<0.001). On multivariable Cox regression analyses, mGPS of 1 or 2 remained associated with worse recurrence-free survival (HR 1.14, P=0.03 and HR 1.89 P<0.001, respectively), cancer-specific survival (HR 1.16, P=0.032 and HR 2.1, P<0.001, respectively) and overall survival (HR 1.5, P=0.007 and HR 1.92 P<0.001, respectively) compared to mGPS of 0. The additional discriminatory ability of the mGPS for prognosis of survival outcomes in separate models that included either established pre- or postoperative variables did not improve the C-Index by a prognostically relevant degree (change of C-Index <2% for all models). On DCA, the inclusion of the mGPS did not meaningfully improve the net-benefit for clinical decision-making regarding survival outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
We confirmed that an elevated mGPS is an independent risk factor for non-organ confined disease and poor survival outcomes in patients with UCB undergoing RC. However, the mGPS showed little value in improving the discriminatory ability of predictive and prognostic models that relied on either pre- or postoperative clinicopathological variables. The discriminatory ability of this biomarker in the age of immunotherapy warrants further evaluation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34114784
pii: S2724-6051.21.04216-6
doi: 10.23736/S2724-6051.21.04216-6
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

302-312

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Victor M Schuettfort (VM)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Kilian Gust (K)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

David D'Andrea (D)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Fahad Quhal (F)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

Hadi Mostafaei (H)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Research Center for Evidence Based Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.

Ekaterina Laukhtina (E)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.

Keiichiro Mori (K)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, The Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.

Michael Rink (M)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Mohammad Abufaraj (M)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Division of Urology, Department of Special Surgery, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.

Pierre I Karakiewicz (PI)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Stefano Luzzago (S)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Department of Urology, IRCCS European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy.

Morgan Rouprêt (M)

Unit of Predictive Onco-Urology, Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

Dmitry Enikeev (D)

Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.

Kristin Zimmermann (K)

Clinic for Urology, Central Military Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.

Marina Deuker (M)

Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes Unit, Division of Urology, University of Montreal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.

Marco Moschini (M)

Department of Urology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Department of Urology and Division of Experimental Oncology, Urological Research Institute, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.

Reza Sari Motlagh (R)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Men's Health and Reproductive Health Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Nico C Grossmann (NC)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Satoshi Katayama (S)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan.

Benjamin Pradere (B)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Department of Urology, University Hospital of Tours, Tours, France.

Shahrokh F Shariat (SF)

Department of Urology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria - shahrokh.shariat@meduniwien.ac.at.
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, Sechenov University, Moscow, Russia.
Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA.
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, Vienna, Austria.
European Association of Urology Research Foundation, Arnhem, the Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH