| Literature DB >> 35632435 |
Francesco Trevisani1, Federico Di Marco1, Matteo Floris2, Antonello Pani2, Roberto Minnei2, Mario Scartozzi3, Alessio Cirillo4, Alain Gelibter4, Andrea Botticelli5, Erika Rijavec6, Monica Cattaneo6, Ornella Garrone6, Michele Ghidini6.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and platinum-based chemotherapy (CT) are effective therapeutic agents for the palliative treatment of metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); the aim of our study was to investigate the acute and chronic renal toxicities in this setting. We collected data on 292 patients who received cisplatin (35%), carboplatin-based regimens (25%), or ICI monotherapy (40%). The primary and secondary outcomes were compared to the acute kidney injury (AKI) rate and the mean estimated GFR (eGFR) decay between groups, respectively, over a mean follow-up duration of 15 weeks. We observed 26 AKI events (8.9%), mostly stage I AKI (80.7%); 15% were stage II AKI, 3.8% were stage III, and none required renal replacement therapy or ICU admission. The AKI rates were 10.9%, 6.8%, and 8.9% for the cisplatin, carboplatin, and ICI groups, respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups (p = 0.3). A global mean eGFR decay of 2.2 mL/min was observed, while for the cisplatin, carboplatin, and ICI groups, the eGFR decay values were 2.3 mL/min, 1.1 mL/min, and 3.5 mL/min, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the groups. Cisplatin/carboplatin-based CT and ICIs resulted in a similar incidence of AKI and eGFR decay, suggesting the safety of their cautious use, even in CKD patients.Entities:
Keywords: acute kidney injury (AKI); carboplatin; chronic kidney disease (CKD); cisplatin; immune checkpoint inhibitors; immunotherapy; multidisciplinary care; onconephrology; renal toxicity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35632435 PMCID: PMC9142889 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10050679
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vaccines (Basel) ISSN: 2076-393X
Simplified CKD staging according to KDIGO criteria.
| CKD Categories | Category Range: eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) | Category Description | Risk of Progression with A1 | Risk of Progression with A2 | Risk of Progression with A3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| >90 with clinical, laboratory, imaging evidence of kidney disease | Normal or high | Low | Moderately increased | High |
|
| 60–89 | Mildly decreased | Low | Moderately increased | High |
|
| 45–59 | Mildly to moderately decreased | Moderately increased | High | Very high |
|
| 30–44 | Moderately to severely decreased | High | Very high | Very high |
|
| 15–29 | Severely decreased | Very high | Very high | Very high |
|
| <15 | Kidney failure | Very high | Very high | Very high |
Adapted from ref. [18]. CKD: chronic kidney disease; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; UACR: urine albumin concentration to urine creatinine concentration ratio in a random urine sample (mg/g); A1: albuminuria category A1 (<30 mg/g in UACR); A2: albuminuria category A2 (30–300 mg/g in UACR); A3: albuminuria category A3 (>300 mg/g in UACR).
Baseline descriptive population characteristics. 1: Kruskal–Wallis test; 2: Pearson’s Chi-square test.
| Carbo | Cis | ICIs | Total ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 4.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 7.0 (4.0, 12.0) | 4.0 (2.0, 7.0) | <0.001 1 | |
| 67 | 84 | 143 | 104 | <0.001 1 | |
| 72.0 (67.0, 77.0) | 66.0 (59.0, 74.0) | 72.0 (66.2, 77.0) | 70.5 (63.0, 76.0) | <0.001 1 | |
|
| 0.548 2 | ||||
| Women | 23 (31.5%) | 30 (29.7%) | 43 (36.4%) | 96 (32.9%) | |
| Men | 50 (68.5%) | 71 (70.3%) | 75 (63.6%) | 196 (67.1%) | |
| 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.0) | 0.9 (0.7, 1.1) | 0.9 (0.8, 1.1) | 0.180 1 | |
| 74.7 (64.7, 87.9) | 81.2 (72.3, 94.1) | 76.6 (61.8, 89.7) | 79.0 (65.7, 91.0) | 0.006 1 | |
| 23.7 (21.6, 26.7) | 23.1 (21.8, 25.5) | 24.2 (21.3, 26.9) | 23.6 (21.8, 26.4) | 0.454 1 | |
|
| 1 (14.3%) | 5 (16.1%) | 3 (10.3%) | 9 (13.4%) | 0.804 2 |
|
| 14 (19.2%) | 26 (25.7%) | 35 (29.7%) | 75 (25.7%) | 0.273 2 |
| 0.002 2 | |||||
|
| 15 (20.5%) | 34 (33.7%) | 28 (23.7%) | 77 (26.4%) | |
|
| 40 (54.8%) | 59 (58.4%) | 63 (53.4%) | 162 (55.5%) | |
|
| 9 (12.3%) | 8 (7.9%) | 22 (18.6%) | 39 (13.4%) | |
|
| 8 (11.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (2.5%) | 11 (3.8%) | |
|
| 1 (1.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (1.7%) | 3 (1.0%) | |
|
| 0.002 2 | ||||
| Cagliari | 7 (9.6%) | 31 (30.7%) | 29 (24.6%) | 67 (22.9%) | |
| Milan | 36 (49.3%) | 38 (37.6%) | 63 (53.4%) | 137 (46.9%) | |
| Rome | 30 (41.1%) | 32 (31.7%) | 26 (22.0%) | 88 (30.1%) |
Results: primary and secondary endpoints. 1: Pearson’s Chi-square test; 2: Kruskal–Wallis test.
| Carbo | Cis | ICIs | Total ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 5 (6.8%) | 11 (10.9%) | 10 (8.5%) | 26 (8.9%) | 0.638 1 |
|
| 1.1 (−6.4;7.4) | 2.3 (−6; 14.6) | 2.6 (−3.5; 8.4) | 2.2 (−4.7; 10.1) | 0.7 2 |
Figure 1Mean eGFR decay and AKI incidence for each treatment cycle in the carboplatin, cisplatin, and ICI groups.
Multivariable logistic regression. 1: reference level treatment: carboplatin.
| ODDs Ratio | CI (0.95%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.4 × 107 | 1.1 × 10−125; Inf | 1 |
|
| 5.5 × 107 | 2.4 × 10−152; Inf | 1 |
|
| 1.1 | 1.0; 1.2 | 0.05 |
|
| 1.0 | 1.2 × 10−1; 1.0 × 10 | 0.9 |
|
| 1.2 | 4.0 × 10−2; 1.9 × 10 | 1 |
|
| 1.5 | 6.3 × 10−2; 2.1 × 10 | 0.7 |
|
| 3.1 × 10−7 | 0; 1.7 × 10196 | 0.5 |
Multivariable linear regression for eGFR decay (basal–final). 1: reference level treatment: carboplatin.
| Beta (mL/min) | CI (0.95%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| −2 | −13; 8 | 0.6 |
|
| −3 | −13; 7 | 0.6 |
|
| 5 | −3; 13 | 0.2 |
|
| −6 | −12; 0.3 | 0.06 |
|
| 7 | −0.8; 16 | 0.07 |
|
| 1 | −0.2; 1 | 0.2 |
|
| 31 | 22; 40 | <0.001 |
|
| −3 | −9; 3 | 0.3 |
|
| −0.04 | −1; 1 | 0.9 |
Figure 2CKD G category distribution at the end of treatment according to the baseline category.