A prospective cross-sectional study estimated glomerular filtration rate from creatinine and cystatin C in adults with solid tumors

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Current guidelines recommend estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using creatinine (eGFRcr) with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation as the first test for GFR evaluation, but the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equation is still commonly used in oncology practice and clinical trials despite increasing evidence of its inaccuracy compared to measured GFR (mGFR). Guidelines recommend eGFR using cystatin C (eGFRcys) or both markers (eGFRcr-cys) as a confirmatory test, but neither was carefully evaluated in cancer patients. Therefore, we compared performance of the CKD-EPI equations and others to the CG equation in adults with a variety of solid tumors. The mGFR was determined by plasma clearance of 51Cr-EDTA. Bias was defined as the median of the differences between mGFR and eGFR while accuracy was defined as the percentage of estimates that differed by more than 30% from the measured GFR (1-P30). We prospectively recruited 1,200 patients between April 2015 and September 2017 with a mean age and mGFR of 58.8 years and 78.4 ml/min/1.73m2, respectively. Bias among eGFRcr equations varied from -8.1 to +6.1 ml/min/1.73 m2. CG was the least accurate, 1-P30 (95% confidence interval) was 24.9 (22.4- 27.3)%; CKD-EPI had 1-P30 of 19.1 (16.8-21.2)% while eGFRcr-cys had the best performance: bias -2.0 (-2.6 to -1.1) ml/min/1.73m2 and 1-P30 7.8 (6.3-9.4)%. Thus, the CG equation should not be preferred over CKD-EPI equation, and eGFRcr-cys can be used as a confirmatory test in adults with solid tumors. Hence, a major policy implication would be to adopt general practice guideline-recommended methods for GFR evaluation in oncology practice and clinical trials.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate.

Andrew Levey, Lesley Stevens, Christopher H Schmid … (2009)

Equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are routinely used to assess kidney function. Current equations have limited precision and systematically underestimate measured GFR at higher values. To develop a new estimating equation for GFR: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Cross-sectional analysis with separate pooled data sets for equation development and validation and a representative sample of the U.S. population for prevalence estimates. Research studies and clinical populations ("studies") with measured GFR and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to 2006. 8254 participants in 10 studies (equation development data set) and 3896 participants in 16 studies (validation data set). Prevalence estimates were based on 16,032 participants in NHANES. GFR, measured as the clearance of exogenous filtration markers (iothalamate in the development data set; iothalamate and other markers in the validation data set), and linear regression to estimate the logarithm of measured GFR from standardized creatinine levels, sex, race, and age. In the validation data set, the CKD-EPI equation performed better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation, especially at higher GFR (P < 0.001 for all subsequent comparisons), with less bias (median difference between measured and estimated GFR, 2.5 vs. 5.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), improved precision (interquartile range [IQR] of the differences, 16.6 vs. 18.3 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), and greater accuracy (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of measured GFR, 84.1% vs. 80.6%). In NHANES, the median estimated GFR was 94.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (IQR, 79.7 to 108.1) vs. 85.0 (IQR, 72.9 to 98.5) mL/min per 1.73 m(2), and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 11.5% (95% CI, 10.6% to 12.4%) versus 13.1% (CI, 12.1% to 14.0%). The sample contained a limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR. The CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation and could replace it for routine clinical use. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

0 comments Cited 4738 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Prediction of Creatinine Clearance from Serum Creatinine

Donald W Cockcroft, Henry Gault (1976)

A formula has been developed to predict creatinine clearance (C cr ) from serum creatinine (S cr ) in adult males: Ccr = (140 – age) (wt kg)/72 × S cr (mg/100ml) (15% less in females). Derivation included the relationship found between age and 24-hour creatinine excretion/kg in 249 patients aged 18–92. Values for C cr were predicted by this formula and four other methods and the results compared with the means of two 24-hour C cr’s measured in 236 patients. The above formula gave a correlation coefficient between predicted and mean measured Ccr·s of 0.83; on average, the difference between predicted and mean measured values was no greater than that between paired clearances. Factors for age and body weight must be included for reasonable prediction.

0 comments Cited 1547 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Estimating glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine and cystatin C.

Lesley A. Inker, Christopher H. Schmid, Hocine Tighiouart … (2012)

Estimates of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) that are based on serum creatinine are routinely used; however, they are imprecise, potentially leading to the overdiagnosis of chronic kidney disease. Cystatin C is an alternative filtration marker for estimating GFR. Using cross-sectional analyses, we developed estimating equations based on cystatin C alone and in combination with creatinine in diverse populations totaling 5352 participants from 13 studies. These equations were then validated in 1119 participants from 5 different studies in which GFR had been measured. Cystatin and creatinine assays were traceable to primary reference materials. Mean measured GFRs were 68 and 70 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area in the development and validation data sets, respectively. In the validation data set, the creatinine-cystatin C equation performed better than equations that used creatinine or cystatin C alone. Bias was similar among the three equations, with a median difference between measured and estimated GFR of 3.9 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with the combined equation, as compared with 3.7 and 3.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) with the creatinine equation and the cystatin C equation (P=0.07 and P=0.05), respectively. Precision was improved with the combined equation (interquartile range of the difference, 13.4 vs. 15.4 and 16.4 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), respectively [P=0.001 and P 30% of measured GFR, 8.5 vs. 12.8 and 14.1, respectively [P<0.001 for both comparisons]). In participants whose estimated GFR based on creatinine was 45 to 74 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2), the combined equation improved the classification of measured GFR as either less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) or greater than or equal to 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) (net reclassification index, 19.4% [P<0.001]) and correctly reclassified 16.9% of those with an estimated GFR of 45 to 59 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) as having a GFR of 60 ml or higher per minute per 1.73 m(2). The combined creatinine-cystatin C equation performed better than equations based on either of these markers alone and may be useful as a confirmatory test for chronic kidney disease. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.).