Purpose: Management of patients with cancer, specifically carboplatin dosing, requires accurate knowledge of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Direct measurement of GFR is resource limited. Available models for estimated GFR (eGFR) are optimized for patients without cancer and either isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)- or non-IDMS–standardized creatinine measurements. We present an eGFR model for patients with cancer compatible with both creatinine measurement methods. Experimental Design: GFR measurements, biometrics, and IDMS- or non-IDMS–standardized creatinine values were collected for adult patients from three cancer centers. Using statistical modeling, an IDMS and non-IDMS creatinine-compatible eGFR model (CamGFR v2) was developed. Its performance was compared with that of the existing models Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Full Age Spectrum (FAS), Lund–Malmö revised, and CamGFR v1, using statistics for bias, precision, accuracy, and clinical robustness. Results: A total of 3,083 IDMS- and 4,612 non-IDMS–standardized creatinine measurements were obtained from 7,240 patients. IDMS-standardized creatinine values were lower than non-IDMS–standardized values in within-center comparisons (13.8% lower in Cambridge; P < 0.0001 and 19.3% lower in Manchester; P < 0.0001), and more consistent between centers. CamGFR v2 was the most accurate [root-mean-squared error for IDMS, 14.97 mL/minute (95% confidence interval, 13.84–16.13) and non-IDMS, 15.74 mL/minute (14.86–16.63)], most clinically robust [proportion with >20% error of calculated carboplatin dose for IDMS, 0.12 (0.09–0.14) and non-IDMS, 0.17 (0.15–0.2)], and least biased [median residual for IDMS, 0.73 mL/minute (−0.68 to 2.2) and non-IDMS, −0.43 mL/minute (−1.48 to 0.91)] eGFR model, particularly when eGFR was larger than 60 ml/minute. Conclusions: CamGFR v2 can utilize IDMS- and non-IDMS–standardized creatinine measurements and outperforms previous models. CamGFR v2 should be examined prospectively as a practice-changing standard of care for eGFR-based carboplatin dosing.

Important oncological management decisions rely on kidney function assessed by serum creatinine–based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). However, no large-scale multicenter comparisons of methods to determine eGFR in patients with cancer are available. To compare the performance of formulas for eGFR based on routine clinical parameters and serum creatinine not calibrated with isotope dilution mass spectrometry, we studied 3620 patients with cancer and 166 without cancer who had their glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measured with an exogenous nuclear tracer at one of seven clinical centers. The mean measured GFR was 86 mL/min. Accuracy of all models was center dependent, reflecting intercenter variability of isotope dilution mass spectrometry–creatinine measurements. CamGFR was the most accurate model for eGFR (root-mean-squared error 17.3 mL/min) followed by the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration model (root-mean-squared error 18.2 mL/min).

<div>AbstractPurpose:<p>Management of patients with cancer, specifically carboplatin dosing, requires accurate knowledge of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Direct measurement of GFR is resource limited. Available models for estimated GFR (eGFR) are optimized for patients without cancer and either isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS)- or non-IDMS–standardized creatinine measurements. We present an eGFR model for patients with cancer compatible with both creatinine measurement methods.</p>Experimental Design:<p>GFR measurements, biometrics, and IDMS- or non-IDMS–standardized creatinine values were collected for adult patients from three cancer centers. Using statistical modeling, an IDMS and non-IDMS creatinine-compatible eGFR model (CamGFR v2) was developed. Its performance was compared with that of the existing models Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Full Age Spectrum (FAS), Lund–Malmö revised, and CamGFR v1, using statistics for bias, precision, accuracy, and clinical robustness.</p>Results:<p>A total of 3,083 IDMS- and 4,612 non-IDMS–standardized creatinine measurements were obtained from 7,240 patients. IDMS-standardized creatinine values were lower than non-IDMS–standardized values in within-center comparisons (13.8% lower in Cambridge; <i>P</i> < 0.0001 and 19.3% lower in Manchester; <i>P</i> < 0.0001), and more consistent between centers. CamGFR v2 was the most accurate [root-mean-squared error for IDMS, 14.97 mL/minute (95% confidence interval, 13.84–16.13) and non-IDMS, 15.74 mL/minute (14.86–16.63)], most clinically robust [proportion with >20% error of calculated carboplatin dose for IDMS, 0.12 (0.09–0.14) and non-IDMS, 0.17 (0.15–0.2)], and least biased [median residual for IDMS, 0.73 mL/minute (−0.68 to 2.2) and non-IDMS, −0.43 mL/minute (−1.48 to 0.91)] eGFR model, particularly when eGFR was larger than 60 ml/minute.</p>Conclusions:<p>CamGFR v2 can utilize IDMS- and non-IDMS–standardized creatinine measurements and outperforms previous models. CamGFR v2 should be examined prospectively as a practice-changing standard of care for eGFR-based carboplatin dosing.</p></div>

<p>Excel file containing Tables S7, S9-15, S18</p>