PURPOSE: Determination of renal function is a prerequisite for planning therapy in cancer patients. Limitations of creatinine as marker for the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) led to the proposal of cystatin C as a more accurate biomarker especially in mild renal insufficiency or in patients with low muscle mass. We compared the accuracy of cystatin C- and creatinine-based equations to estimate GFR in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving platinum-based radiochemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 52 HNC patients (GFR range, 37-105 mL/min/1.73 m(2) complemented by 17 patients with known renal insufficiency (GFR range, 10-60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated between the reference method (51)Cr-EDTA clearance and estimated GFR by creatinine clearance and equations based on creatinine (Cockroft-Gault, modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), Wright) or cystatin C (Larsson, Dade-Behring, Hoek). In addition, sensitivity and specificity to discriminate GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). RESULTS: The highest correlation coefficients were found for the cystatin C-based estimates in comparison with creatinine-based estimates or creatinine clearance, even though Bland-Altman plots revealed GFR overestimation for all equations tested. The cystatin C-based Hoek formula exhibited the highest overall precision and accuracy. GFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was assumed as a cut-off for chemotherapy. ROC analyses revealed the highest AUC to predict a GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for the creatinine-based Wright formula, closely followed by the MDRD formula and cystatin C-based equations of Larsson, Dade-Behring, and Hoek. CONCLUSION: Cystatin C-based GFR estimates showed the overall strongest correlation to the reference method. Thus, we recommend cystatin C for GFR estimation in HNC patients as an alternative method to the estimated creatinine clearance in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: Determination of renal function is a prerequisite for planning therapy in cancerpatients. Limitations of creatinine as marker for the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) led to the proposal of cystatin C as a more accurate biomarker especially in mild renal insufficiency or in patients with low muscle mass. We compared the accuracy of cystatin C- and creatinine-based equations to estimate GFR in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving platinum-based radiochemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 52 HNC patients (GFR range, 37-105 mL/min/1.73 m(2) complemented by 17 patients with known renal insufficiency (GFR range, 10-60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated between the reference method (51)Cr-EDTA clearance and estimated GFR by creatinine clearance and equations based on creatinine (Cockroft-Gault, modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), Wright) or cystatin C (Larsson, Dade-Behring, Hoek). In addition, sensitivity and specificity to discriminate GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were evaluated by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). RESULTS: The highest correlation coefficients were found for the cystatin C-based estimates in comparison with creatinine-based estimates or creatinine clearance, even though Bland-Altman plots revealed GFR overestimation for all equations tested. The cystatin C-based Hoek formula exhibited the highest overall precision and accuracy. GFR of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was assumed as a cut-off for chemotherapy. ROC analyses revealed the highest AUC to predict a GFR > 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for the creatinine-based Wright formula, closely followed by the MDRD formula and cystatin C-based equations of Larsson, Dade-Behring, and Hoek. CONCLUSION:Cystatin C-based GFR estimates showed the overall strongest correlation to the reference method. Thus, we recommend cystatin C for GFR estimation in HNC patients as an alternative method to the estimated creatinine clearance in clinical practice.
Authors: Hendrik Andreas Wolff; Jan Bosch; Klaus Jung; Tobias Overbeck; Steffen Hennies; Christoph Matthias; Clemens F Hess; Ralph M Roedel; Hans Christiansen Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Elaine Amaral Leite; Cristiane dos Santos Giuberti; Alberto J A Wainstein; Ana Paula D L Wainstein; Luiz G V Coelho; Angela M Q Lana; Paulo R Savassi-Rocha; Mônica Cristina De Oliveira Journal: Life Sci Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 5.037
Authors: P Kröpil; W Budach; E Bölke; P A Gerber; F Zinnmann; H Hautzel; G Antoch; A Scherer; C Matuschek Journal: Strahlenther Onkol Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 3.621
Authors: Willemijn L Eppenga; Matthijs van Luin; Clemens Richter; Hieronymus J Derijks; Peter A G M De Smet; Michel Wensing Journal: J Nephrol Date: 2013-12-20 Impact factor: 3.902
Authors: Willemijn L Eppenga; Cornelis Kramers; Hieronymus J Derijks; Michel Wensing; Jack F M Wetzels; Peter A G M De Smet Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gisela Schieren; Edwin Bölke; Axel Scherer; Andreas Raffel; Peter Arne Gerber; Patric Kröpil; Matthias Schott; Jackson Hamilton; Anne Hayman; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel; Wilfried Budach; Christiane Matuschek Journal: Eur J Med Res Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 2.175