Evaluation of two inflammation-based prognostic scores in patients with resectable gallbladder carcinoma

Academic Article


  • Background: Survival after surgery for gallbladder cancer is generally poor. A number of inflammation-based prognostic scores have been established to help predict survival after surgery for several types of cancer. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare the utility of two inflammation-based prognostic scores, the Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), for predicting survival in patients with gallbladder cancer after surgery with curative intent. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 85 patients with histologically confirmed, resectable gallbladder carcinoma (GBC), who were to receive curative surgery in our department. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between the variables to overall survival (OS). Results: A significant difference was detected in OS in patients with low and high GPS and NLR scores. Univariate analyses using clinicopathological characteristics revealed that tumor differentiation; tumor invasion; lymph node metastasis; tumor, node, metastasis classification system stage; positive margin status; combined common bile duct resection; serum levels of C-reactive protein, albumin, carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), carcinoembryonic antigen, and CA125; white blood cell count; and GPS and NLR were all associated with OS. Among these characteristics, multivariate analysis demonstrated that a high GPS was independently associated with poorer OS, together with tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, and positive margin status. Conclusions: GPS is superior to NLR with respect to its prognostic value for patients with GBC after surgery with curative intent. GPS is not only associated with tumor progression but is also an independent marker of poor prognosis. © 2013 Society of Surgical Oncology.
  • Authors

    Published In

    Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Wu XS; Shi LB; Li ML; Ding Q; Weng H; Wu WG; Cao Y; Bao RF; Shu YJ; Ding QC
  • Start Page

  • 449
  • End Page

  • 457
  • Volume

  • 21
  • Issue

  • 2