RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is essential for calculating the dose and the monitoring of carboplatin. Although GFR measurement (mGFR) by external markers is ideal, in most cases these are not employed; the most used method is GFR estimation (eGFR) by formulae, hence the need to identify the formula with the best performance. METHODS: Patients admitted between 2011 and 2017 and diagnosed with ovarian, endometrial, lung, esophageal, or testicular cancer were assessed retrospectively. The accuracy of the carboplatin dose calculated by creatinine concordance and by the Cockroft-Gault (CG), CKD-EPI, MDRD, Wright, and Jelliffe formulae was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Fifty-six medical histories were analyzed. The best accuracy was observed between the Wright formula (i.e., 0.71) and the dose calculated based on the 24-h creatinine clearance. Stratification by CKD was made in depurations < 60 mL/min, where the Jelliffe value was excellent (i.e., 0.75). In depurations ≥60 mL/min, CKD-EPI was the best formula, with an accuracy of 0.65. CG was the formula with the worst performance in calculating the dose and glomerular filtration, losing its usefulness with very low filtrations. CONCLUSIONS: GFR formulae and calculation of the carboplatin dose have good accuracy with the GFR obtained based on the 24-h creatinine clearance, with the Wright formula being the one with best performance and CG the one with worst performance.
Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Carboplatina/uso terapêutico , Creatinina/urina , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Idoso , Antineoplásicos/efeitos adversos , Carboplatina/efeitos adversos , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Feminino , Taxa de Filtração Glomerular , Humanos , Falência Renal Crônica/etiologia , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Neoplasias/patologia , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
AIM: To evaluate the accuracy of creatinine and cystatin C (cysC) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients and healthy adults. METHODS: Case-control study including 84 patients with type 2 DM and 100 healthy adults with measured GFR (mGFR)≥60mL/min/1.73m2. GFR was measured by 51Cr-EDTA and estimated (eGFR) by the following equations using creatinine, cysC or both markers: Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Caucasian Asian Pediatrics and Adults (CAPA), CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin C (CKDEPI-CC), and CKD-EPI cystatin C (CKDEPIcysC). Agreement was evaluated by Bland & Altman analysis. RESULTS: Healthy individuals were 66% females, aged 38±14years; they presented mGFR 112±19mL/min/1.73m2 and eGFR by CKD-EPI, CKDEPI-CC, CKDEPIcysC and CAPA equations, respectively, 108±17, 102±15, 97±16 and 93±16mL/min/1.73m2. DM group were 50% females, aged 59±19years and presented mGFR 104±27 and eGFR 87±19, 80±18, 74±20 and 73±18mL/min/1.73m2, respectively. All equations significantly underestimated mGFR, excepting creatinine-based CKD-EPI in the healthy group. The performance was considerably worse for GFRs above 120mL/min/1.73m2. CONCLUSION: In both healthy and type 2 DM patients, cystatin C-based equations, including the combined CKD-EPI creatinine-cystatin equation, failed to improve the accuracy of GFR estimation, especially for normal and high normal GFR values.