Validity of new methods to evaluate renal function in cancer patients treated with cisplatin

Funakoshi, Yohei; Fujiwara, Yutaka; Kiyota, Naomi; Mukohara, Toru; Shimada, Toru; Toyoda, Masanori; Imamura, Yoshiaki; Chayahara, Naoko; Tomioka, Hideo; Umezu, Michio; Otsuki, Naoki; Nibu, Ken‐ichi; Minami, Hironobu

doi:10.1007/s00280-016-2966-1

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, in Japan, the eGFR equation was developed for patients with CKD, offering accurate estimations of the GFR in cancer patients even during chemotherapy with cisplatin. 15,23 In addition, there was no significant difference in the frequency or severity of AE among the cohorts and the toxicity profile in this study was similar to those previously reported ( Table 4).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…The MDRD and CKD‐EPI equations are currently used to estimate GFR in United States. Similarly, in Japan, the eGFR equation was developed for patients with CKD, offering accurate estimations of the GFR in cancer patients even during chemotherapy with cisplatin …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The eGFR has been widely accepted as a reliable and simple method for estimating GFR in medical practice in Japan. Although the eGFR equation was developed based on data obtained from Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), it offers higher accuracy for predicting GFR than the CGF and MDRD in cancer patients prior to and after treatment with cisplatin . The eGFR was calculated using the following formula: eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) = 194 × SCr (−1.094) × Age (−0.287) (×0.739 if female).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the eGFR equation was developed based on data obtained from Japanese patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), it offers higher accuracy for predicting GFR than the CGF and MDRD in cancer patients prior to and after treatment with cisplatin. 15 The eGFR was calculated using the following formula: eGFR (mL/min/1 .73 m 2 ) = 194 × SCr (−1.094) × Age (−0.287) (×0.739 if female). Patients were classified into 4 groups according to their renal function at screening, as follows: cohort 1, normal renal function (eGFR ≥ 80 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ); cohort 2, mild dysfunction (eGFR = 50-79 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ); cohort 3, moderate dysfunction (eGFR = 30-49 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ); and cohort 4, severe dysfunction (eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) ( Table 1).…”

Section: Treatment and Assessment Of Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Pharmacokinetic study of the oral fluorouracil antitumor agent S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although dose reduction of S‐1 is recommended for patients with impaired renal function, dose modification for such patients has not been prospectively evaluated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic parameters of 5‐fluorouracil, 5‐chloro‐2,4 dihydroxypyridine and oteracil potassium, and to review the recommended dose modification of S‐1 in patients with renal impairment. We classified patients receiving S‐1 into 4 groups according to their renal function, as measured using the Japanese estimated glomerular filtration rate ( eGFR ) equation. The daily S‐1 dose was adjusted based on the patient's eGFR and body surface area. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. A total of 33 patients were enrolled and classified into 4 groups as follows: 10 patients in cohort 1 ( eGFR ≥ 80 mL /min/1.73 m 2 ), 10 patients in cohort 2 ( eGFR = 50‐79 mL /min/1.73 m 2 ), 10 patients in cohort 3 ( eGFR = 30‐49 mL /min/1.73 m 2 ), and 3 patients in cohort 4 ( eGFR < 30 mL /min/1.73 m 2 ). Those in cohorts 3 and 4 treated with an adjusted dose of S‐1 showed a similar area under the curve for 5‐fluorouracil (941.9 ± 275.6 and 1043.5 ± 224.8 ng/ mL , respectively) compared with cohort 2 (1034.9 ± 414.3 ng/ mL ). Notably, while there was a statistically significant difference between cohort 1 (689.6 ± 208.8 ng/ mL ) and 2 ( P = 0.0474) treated with an equal dose of S‐1, there was no significant difference observed in the toxicity profiles of the cohorts. In conclusion, dose adjustment of S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function using eGFR is appropriate and safe.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatment and Assessment Of Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pharmacokinetic study of the oral fluorouracil antitumor agent S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two studies found superiority of different eGFR formulas in different patient groups[ 42 , 48 ]. Finally, one study[ 59 ] found that the CKD-EPI formula[ 23 ] and a Japanese formula for eGFR based on serum creatinine[ 64 ] are superior to measured creatinine clearance in monitoring patients receiving cisplatin in high doses.…”

Section: Clinical Applications Of the Various Formulas Estimating Gfrmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease: Uses and limitations of formulas estimating the glomerular filtration rate

Alaini

Malhotra

Rondon‐Berrios

et al. 2017

WJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of formulas estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from serum creatinine and cystatin C and accounting for certain variables affecting the production rate of these biomarkers, including ethnicity, gender and age, has led to the current scheme of diagnosing and staging chronic kidney disease (CKD), which is based on eGFR values and albuminuria. This scheme has been applied extensively in various populations and has led to the current estimates of prevalence of CKD. In addition, this scheme is applied in clinical studies evaluating the risks of CKD and the efficacy of various interventions directed towards improving its course. Disagreements between creatinine-based and cystatin-based eGFR values and between eGFR values and measured GFR have been reported in various cohorts. These disagreements are the consequence of variations in the rate of production and in factors, other than GFR, affecting the rate of removal of creatinine and cystatin C. The disagreements create limitations for all eGFR formulas developed so far. The main limitations are low sensitivity in detecting early CKD in several subjects, e.g., those with hyperfiltration, and poor prediction of the course of CKD. Research efforts in CKD are currently directed towards identification of biomarkers that are better indices of GFR than the current biomarkers and, particularly, biomarkers of early renal tissue injury.

show abstract

Adjustment of creatinine clearance for carboplatin dosing in Calvert's formula and clinical efficacy for lung cancer

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe Cockcroft–Gault formula is commonly used as a substitute for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in Calvert's formula for carboplatin dosing, where adjusting serum creatinine measured using the enzymatic method with 0.2 mg/dL has been suggested in Japan. However, the effects of these adjustments on efficacy in patients with non‐small‐cell lung cancer remain unknown.MethodsWe conducted a post hoc analysis of the PREDICT1 study (CJLSG1201), a multicenter prospective observational trial of carboplatin–pemetrexed. Glomerular filtration rate values in Calvert's formula were back‐calculated from the administered dosages of carboplatin and the reported value of the target area under the curve. We estimated the serum creatinine adjustments and divided the patients into crude and adjusted groups.ResultsPatients in the crude group (N = 169) demonstrated similar efficacy to those in the adjusted group (N = 104) in progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76–1.35; p = 0.916 vs. HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65–1.17; p = 0.363), with higher grade 3–4 hematologic toxicity. Among patients aged ≥75 years, the crude group (N = 47) showed superior efficacy compared with the adjusted group (N = 17) in PFS and OS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.20–0.69; p = 0.002 vs. HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23–0.82; p = 0.010).ConclusionsSerum creatinine adjustment may be associated with similar efficacy compared to the crude serum creatinine value. In older patients, the adjustment should be cautiously applied owing to the potential for reduced efficacy.

show abstract

Validity of new methods to evaluate renal function in cancer patients treated with cisplatin

Cited by 24 publications

References 30 publications

Pharmacokinetic study of the oral fluorouracil antitumor agent S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function

Pharmacokinetic study of the oral fluorouracil antitumor agent S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function

Establishing the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease: Uses and limitations of formulas estimating the glomerular filtration rate

Adjustment of creatinine clearance for carboplatin dosing in Calvert's formula and clinical efficacy for lung cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About