Gustave Roussy Immune Score Is a Prognostic Factor for Chemotherapy-Naive Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma With Wild-Type Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Gustave Roussy Immune Score (GRIm-Score) was developed based on the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score for the purpose of a better patient selection for immunotherapy phase I trials. This scoring system is simply calculated by neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and serum albumin concentration. The aim of our study was to determine whether GRIm-Score is a practically useful prognostic biomarker for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy or epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI). METHODS: This retrospective and single institutional study collected 185 adenocarcinomas without active EGFR mutation, 115 squamous cell carcinomas treated with first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy, and 140 NSCLCs with mutant EGFR treated with first- or second-generation EGFR-TKI monotherapy. These treatments were initiated between July 2007 and March 2018 at our hospital. We compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between high and low GRIm-Score groups. Using multivariate Cox proportional hazard analyses, we also found prognostic factors of survival times. RESULTS: The OS and PFS of low GRIm-Score group were significantly longer than those of high-score group in wild-type EGFR adenocarcinoma (low vs. high; median OS, 18.4 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.01, and median PFS, 5.8 vs. 3.7 months, P = 0.01) and EGFR-mutant NSCLC (median OS, 38.9 vs. 10.4 months, P < 0.01, and median PFS, 15.9 vs. 5.0 months, P < 0.01). Subsequent multivariate analyses detected high GRIm-Score in wild-type EGFR adenocarcinoma as a poor prognostic factor of OS (hazard ratio (HR) 2.20, 95% CI 1.47 - 3.31, P < 0.01), and in the EGFR-mutant NSCLC as a poor prognostic factor of PFS (HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.00 - 3.55, P = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: High GRIm-Score was an independent prognostic biomarker of OS of first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy for wild-type EGFR adenocarcinoma and of PFS of first- or second-generation EGFR-TKI for EGFR-mutant NSCLC. Therefore, GRIm-Score is not only a specific selection marker for experimental immunotherapy trials, but may also be a promising and useful pretreatment prognostic maker for specific NSCLC subsets in the real-world practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".