Carboplatin dosage formulae can generate inaccurate predictions of Carboplatin exposure in carboplatin/paclitaxel combination regimens
- PMID: 18370488
- DOI: 10.2165/00044011-199815040-00009
Carboplatin dosage formulae can generate inaccurate predictions of Carboplatin exposure in carboplatin/paclitaxel combination regimens
Abstract
Carboplatin is a frequently used antitumour agent recommended to be administered according to the Calvert formula: dose = AUC x (GFR+25), where GFR is the glomerular filtration rate as measured by (51)Cr-EDTA clearance and AUC is the targeted area under the carboplatin concentration versus time curve. In several modified Calvert formulae, the GFR is estimated on the basis of serum creatinine levels. We compared AUCs of carboplatin that were predicted by modified Calvert formulae with actual measured AUCs in 75 courses in patients with non-small cell lung cancer or ovarian cancer who were treated with the combination of carboplatin-paclitaxel. Predictions were made using two modified Calvert formulae, in which the GFR was calculated by serum creatinine level-based equations, according to Jelliffe (Eq. 1) and Cockroft-Gault (Eq. 2). We also studied the performance of a formula for the clearance of carboplatin, as proposed by Chatelut (Eq. 3). The actual measured mean AUC was 4.6 mg/ml.min (range 1.9 to 10.4 mg/ml.min, SD 1.7). Equation 1 overestimated the AUC by 32.9% with an imprecision of 43.0%, and equation 2 overestimated the AUC by 27.6% with an imprecision of 33.4%. For equation 3, an AUC overestimation of only 10.2%, but with an imprecision of 25.3%, was observed. In conclusion, all three equations overestimated the carboplatin AUCs and had poor precisions. We concluded that the real carboplatin AUCs were lower than calculated, using the three tested formulae. This may have important consequences for ongoing and future phase II and III studies with carboplatin-paclitaxel combinations, utilising these formulae to calculate the carboplatin dose. Thus far, the original Calvert dosage formula remains the 'golden standard'.
Similar articles
-
Difference of carboplatin clearance estimated by the Cockroft-Gault, Jelliffe, Modified-Jelliffe, Wright or Chatelut formula.Gynecol Oncol. 2005 Nov;99(2):327-33. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2005.06.003. Epub 2005 Jul 11. Gynecol Oncol. 2005. PMID: 16005943
-
Prediction of carboplatin clearance calculated by patient characteristics or 24-hour creatinine clearance: a comparison of the performance of three formulae.Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1998;42(4):307-12. doi: 10.1007/s002800050822. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1998. PMID: 9744776 Clinical Trial.
-
Measured versus estimated glomerular filtration rate in the Calvert equation: influence on carboplatin dosing.Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2001 May;47(5):373-9. doi: 10.1007/s002800000260. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2001. PMID: 11391850
-
Analysis of carboplatin dosing in patients with a glomerular filtration rate greater than 125 mL/min: To cap or not to cap? A retrospective analysis and review.J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019 Oct;25(7):1651-1657. doi: 10.1177/1078155218805136. Epub 2018 Oct 18. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 2019. PMID: 30336729 Review.
-
Carboplatin dosing for adult Japanese patients.Nagoya J Med Sci. 2014 Feb;76(1-2):1-9. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2014. PMID: 25129986 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Phase I Study of Sorafenib Combined with Gemcitabine and Carboplatin in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors.Oncol Ther. 2025 Jun;13(2):465-483. doi: 10.1007/s40487-025-00340-8. Epub 2025 May 14. Oncol Ther. 2025. PMID: 40366624 Free PMC article.
References
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical