Melanie White-Koning1,2, Marie Noëlle Paludetto1,2,3, Félicien Le Louedec1,3, Laurence Gladieff4, Christine Chevreau4, Etienne Chatelut1,2, Florent Puisset5,6,7. 1. Centre de Recherches en Cancérologie de Toulouse (CRCT), INSERM UMR1037, 2 Avenue Hubert Curien, CS53717, 31037, Toulouse CEDEX 1, France. 2. Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III, Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse CEDEX 9, France. 3. Pharmacy Department, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulousain (IUCT) Oncopole, Institut Claudius Regaud, 1 avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, Toulouse CEDEX 9, 31059, France. 4. Oncology Department, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulousain (IUCT) Oncopole, Institut Claudius Regaud, 1 avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, Toulouse CEDEX 9, 31059, France. 5. Centre de Recherches en Cancérologie de Toulouse (CRCT), INSERM UMR1037, 2 Avenue Hubert Curien, CS53717, 31037, Toulouse CEDEX 1, France. puisset.florent@iuct-oncopole.fr. 6. Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III, Université de Toulouse, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062, Toulouse CEDEX 9, France. puisset.florent@iuct-oncopole.fr. 7. Pharmacy Department, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulousain (IUCT) Oncopole, Institut Claudius Regaud, 1 avenue Irène Joliot-Curie, Toulouse CEDEX 9, 31059, France. puisset.florent@iuct-oncopole.fr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: While doses of carboplatin are mostly individualized according to the Calvert equation based on estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), there is still uncertainty regarding the best formula to predict GFR. Since Janowitz et al. recently proposed a new equation predicting GFR in cancer patients, we aimed to compare this equation to other carboplatin clearance (carboCL) predicting formulae. METHODS: The actual carboCL of 491 patients was compared to predicted carboCL according to the Calvert formula using several equations to predict GFR (Janowitz, Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, CKD-EPI, CKD-EPI with cystatin C (CKD-EPI-cysC)); and according to two others that directly predict carboCL (Chatelut and Thomas). The formulae were compared on Mean Percentage Error (MPE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and percentage of patients with a prediction error above 20% (P20). RESULTS: The MPE, MAPE and P20 were, respectively, within the ranges - 5.2 to + 5.9%; 14.0-21.2% and 23-46%. The MAPE and P20 of Calvert-CKD-EPI-cysC were the lowest. The performance of Calvert-CKD-EPI was better than that of other creatinine-based formulae although not significantly different from the Calvert-Janowitz formula. Among formulae based on creatinine only, Calvert-CKD-EPI and Calvert-Janowitz are the least influenced by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Whereas CysC improves carboplatin CL prediction, the Calvert-CKD-EPI equation seems the most suitable creatinine-based formula to predict carboCL homogeneously in all subgroups of patients.
PURPOSE: While doses of carboplatin are mostly individualized according to the Calvert equation based on estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR), there is still uncertainty regarding the best formula to predict GFR. Since Janowitz et al. recently proposed a new equation predicting GFR in cancerpatients, we aimed to compare this equation to other carboplatin clearance (carboCL) predicting formulae. METHODS: The actual carboCL of 491 patients was compared to predicted carboCL according to the Calvert formula using several equations to predict GFR (Janowitz, Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, CKD-EPI, CKD-EPI with cystatin C (CKD-EPI-cysC)); and according to two others that directly predict carboCL (Chatelut and Thomas). The formulae were compared on Mean Percentage Error (MPE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and percentage of patients with a prediction error above 20% (P20). RESULTS: The MPE, MAPE and P20 were, respectively, within the ranges - 5.2 to + 5.9%; 14.0-21.2% and 23-46%. The MAPE and P20 of Calvert-CKD-EPI-cysC were the lowest. The performance of Calvert-CKD-EPI was better than that of other creatinine-based formulae although not significantly different from the Calvert-Janowitz formula. Among formulae based on creatinine only, Calvert-CKD-EPI and Calvert-Janowitz are the least influenced by patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: Whereas CysC improves carboplatin CL prediction, the Calvert-CKD-EPI equation seems the most suitable creatinine-based formula to predict carboCL homogeneously in all subgroups of patients.
Authors: Lesley A Inker; Christopher H Schmid; Hocine Tighiouart; John H Eckfeldt; Harold I Feldman; Tom Greene; John W Kusek; Jane Manzi; Frederick Van Lente; Yaping Lucy Zhang; Josef Coresh; Andrew S Levey Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ayub Akbari; Catherine M Clase; Phil Acott; Marisa Battistella; Aminu Bello; Patrick Feltmate; Allan Grill; Meena Karsanji; Paul Komenda; Francois Madore; Braden J Manns; Sara Mahdavi; Reem A Mustafa; Andrew Smyth; E Sohani Welcher Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: A H Calvert; D R Newell; L A Gumbrell; S O'Reilly; M Burnell; F E Boxall; Z H Siddik; I R Judson; M E Gore; E Wiltshaw Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1989-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tobias Janowitz; Edward H Williams; Andrea Marshall; Nicola Ainsworth; Peter B Thomas; Stephen J Sammut; Scott Shepherd; Jeff White; Patrick B Mark; Andy G Lynch; Duncan I Jodrell; Simon Tavaré; Helena Earl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-07-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Edward H Williams; Thomas R Flint; Claire M Connell; Daniel Giglio; Hassal Lee; Taehoon Ha; Eva Gablenz; Nicholas J Bird; James M J Weaver; Harry Potts; Cameron T Whitley; Michael A Bookman; Andy G Lynch; Hannah V Meyer; Simon Tavaré; Tobias Janowitz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-12-10 Impact factor: 13.801
Authors: Jason N Barreto; Joel M Reid; Carrie A Thompson; Kristin C Mara; Andrew D Rule; Kianoush B Kashani; Nelson Leung; Thomas R Larson; Renee M McGovern; Thomas E Witzig; Erin F Barreto Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-08-23 Impact factor: 4.689