BACKGROUND: Nephrotoxicity is the dose-limiting side effect of cisplatin justifying the assessment of renal function for dose adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether appropriate dose adjustment is made in patients with renal impairment using the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) or the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (aMDRD) formulas to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). SETTING: The study was conducted in a 1,000-bed university hospital. METHOD: Two years of cisplatin prescriptions were retrospectively compared to the 4 and 3 ranges estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)-stratified dosing recommendations (4RR and 3RR respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cisplatin dose in mg/m(2) based on kidney function and according to the dosing recommendations. RESULTS: Among 1,364 cycles of cisplatin, 156 (11.4 %) were prescribed for 70 patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min and a median age of 67.4 years. For 57 (36 %) of these cycles, doses were not reduced. When reduced, prescribed doses were not different than recommended doses according to 4RR using CG (% of protocol, 63 ± 12 vs. 64 ± 17) while it was significantly lower using aMDRD (% of protocol, 66 ± 12 vs. 81 ± 22, p < 0.01) and significantly higher according to 3RR using both CG and aMDRD (% of protocol, 63 ± 12 vs. 50 ± 3 and 66 ± 12 vs. 50.7 ± 4.0 respectively, p < 0.01). Prescription of at least one appropriate dose according to 4RR and using aMDRD was associated with a statistically significant higher median total cumulative dose (% of protocol, 89.9 vs. 75.1 % respectively, p < 0.01) without higher decrease of eGFR over time. CONCLUSION: Cisplatin dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment must be improved. Estimating GFR with the aMDRD formula and adding an intermediary level of dose reduction for patients with eGFR from 50 to 59.9 mL/min may result in a higher cumulative dose of cisplatin without higher renal toxicity, which may significantly impact on the effectiveness of the chemotherapy. A prospective evaluation remains needed to assess the benefit/risk ratio of this dose adaptation schedule, taking into account the variability of the GFR estimates.
BACKGROUND:Nephrotoxicity is the dose-limiting side effect of cisplatin justifying the assessment of renal function for dose adjustment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether appropriate dose adjustment is made in patients with renal impairment using the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) or the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (aMDRD) formulas to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). SETTING: The study was conducted in a 1,000-bed university hospital. METHOD: Two years of cisplatin prescriptions were retrospectively compared to the 4 and 3 ranges estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)-stratified dosing recommendations (4RR and 3RR respectively). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cisplatin dose in mg/m(2) based on kidney function and according to the dosing recommendations. RESULTS: Among 1,364 cycles of cisplatin, 156 (11.4 %) were prescribed for 70 patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min and a median age of 67.4 years. For 57 (36 %) of these cycles, doses were not reduced. When reduced, prescribed doses were not different than recommended doses according to 4RR using CG (% of protocol, 63 ± 12 vs. 64 ± 17) while it was significantly lower using aMDRD (% of protocol, 66 ± 12 vs. 81 ± 22, p < 0.01) and significantly higher according to 3RR using both CG and aMDRD (% of protocol, 63 ± 12 vs. 50 ± 3 and 66 ± 12 vs. 50.7 ± 4.0 respectively, p < 0.01). Prescription of at least one appropriate dose according to 4RR and using aMDRD was associated with a statistically significant higher median total cumulative dose (% of protocol, 89.9 vs. 75.1 % respectively, p < 0.01) without higher decrease of eGFR over time. CONCLUSION:Cisplatin dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment must be improved. Estimating GFR with the aMDRD formula and adding an intermediary level of dose reduction for patients with eGFR from 50 to 59.9 mL/min may result in a higher cumulative dose of cisplatin without higher renal toxicity, which may significantly impact on the effectiveness of the chemotherapy. A prospective evaluation remains needed to assess the benefit/risk ratio of this dose adaptation schedule, taking into account the variability of the GFR estimates.
Authors: Mário L de Lemos; Teresa Hsieh; Linda Hamata; Adeera Levin; Ken Swenerton; Ognjenka Djurdjev; Thanh Vu; Francis Hu; James Conklin; Suzanne C Malfair Taylor Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Kurt A Wargo; Edward H Eiland; Wayne Hamm; Thomas M English; Haley M Phillippe Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2006-07-11 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Lesley A Stevens; Thomas D Nolin; Michelle M Richardson; Harold I Feldman; Julia B Lewis; Roger Rodby; Raymond Townsend; Aghogho Okparavero; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Christopher H Schmid; Andrew S Levey Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2009-05-17 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Carolin Grafe; Sabine Semrau; Alexander Hein; Matthias W Beckmann; Andreas Mackensen; Frank Dörje; Martin F Fromm Journal: Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol Date: 2018-01-02 Impact factor: 3.000
Authors: Di Maria Jiang; Shilpa Gupta; Abhijat Kitchlu; Alejandro Meraz-Munoz; Scott A North; Nimira S Alimohamed; Normand Blais; Srikala S Sridhar Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-01-11 Impact factor: 14.432
Authors: Shveta S Motwani; Gearoid M McMahon; Benjamin D Humphreys; Ann H Partridge; Sushrut S Waikar; Gary C Curhan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shveta S Motwani; Toni K Choueiri; Ann H Partridge; Jiani Hu; Marina D Kaymakcalan; Sushrut S Waikar; Gary C Curhan Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2020-12-29
Authors: Cierra N Sharp; Mark A Doll; Tess V Dupre; Parag P Shah; Marimuthu Subathra; Deanna Siow; Gavin E Arteel; Judit Megyesi; Levi J Beverly; Leah J Siskind Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2016-01-06
Authors: L M Black; J M Lever; A M Traylor; B Chen; Z Yang; S K Esman; Y Jiang; G R Cutter; R Boddu; J F George; A Agarwal Journal: Am J Physiol Renal Physiol Date: 2018-06-13