Prognostic Significance of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) Score in Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Despite the promising evidence of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score as a readily available prognostic biomarker in patients with cancer, the wide scale implementation in clinical practice as well as the true benefit in clinical decision-making is lacking. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the available evidence on the association between the RMH score and prognosis in patients with cancer. This comprehensive meta-analysis, encompassing over a hundred thousand patients, revealed a negative association between a higher RMH score and survival in cancer patients. The available evidence demonstrates that the RMH score is not only a selective biomarker for patients enrolled in clinical trials, but also a useful prognostic biomarker in a real-world setting. Future research should aim to validate and refine this score, ensuring its optimal application in clinical practice and decision-making. Background: Cancer remains a leading cause of death globally, necessitating the identification of prognostic biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) score, based on readily available blood tests and clinical features, has emerged as a prognostic tool, although its performance across variable clinical scenarios is not thoroughly delineated. Therefore, we aimed to systematically assess the association between RMH score and survival in cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search across Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for studies published up to 15 February 2024. We performed a meta-analysis with the generic inverse variance method with a random-effects model and reported hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Nineteen studies encompassing 127,230 patients were included. A higher RMH score was significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) (HR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.87-2.33, p < 0.001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.48-2.18, p < 0.001). This association was consistent across various subgroups, including study population (clinical trial vs. real-world cohort), geographic region, and tumor type. Conclusion: This meta-analysis, including over a hundred thousand patients, demonstrates a negative association between a higher RMH score and survival in cancer patients. The RMH score holds promise as a readily available prognostic tool across diverse cancer types and clinical settings. Future research should focus on validating and refining this score to aid clinical decision-making.