Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Apr;36(2):420-9.
doi: 10.1007/s11096-013-9912-7. Epub 2014 Jan 17.

Cisplatin dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment, which recommendations should we follow?

Affiliations

Cisplatin dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment, which recommendations should we follow?

Youssef Bennis et al. Int J Clin Pharm. 2014 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Nephrotoxicity is the dose-limiting side effect of cisplatin justifying the assessment of renal function for dose adjustment.

Objective: To determine whether appropriate dose adjustment is made in patients with renal impairment using the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) or the abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (aMDRD) formulas to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR).

Setting: The study was conducted in a 1,000-bed university hospital.

Method: Two years of cisplatin prescriptions were retrospectively compared to the 4 and 3 ranges estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)-stratified dosing recommendations (4RR and 3RR respectively).

Main outcome measure: Cisplatin dose in mg/m(2) based on kidney function and according to the dosing recommendations.

Results: Among 1,364 cycles of cisplatin, 156 (11.4 %) were prescribed for 70 patients with eGFR < 60 mL/min and a median age of 67.4 years. For 57 (36 %) of these cycles, doses were not reduced. When reduced, prescribed doses were not different than recommended doses according to 4RR using CG (% of protocol, 63 ± 12 vs. 64 ± 17) while it was significantly lower using aMDRD (% of protocol, 66 ± 12 vs. 81 ± 22, p < 0.01) and significantly higher according to 3RR using both CG and aMDRD (% of protocol, 63 ± 12 vs. 50 ± 3 and 66 ± 12 vs. 50.7 ± 4.0 respectively, p < 0.01). Prescription of at least one appropriate dose according to 4RR and using aMDRD was associated with a statistically significant higher median total cumulative dose (% of protocol, 89.9 vs. 75.1 % respectively, p < 0.01) without higher decrease of eGFR over time.

Conclusion: Cisplatin dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment must be improved. Estimating GFR with the aMDRD formula and adding an intermediary level of dose reduction for patients with eGFR from 50 to 59.9 mL/min may result in a higher cumulative dose of cisplatin without higher renal toxicity, which may significantly impact on the effectiveness of the chemotherapy. A prospective evaluation remains needed to assess the benefit/risk ratio of this dose adaptation schedule, taking into account the variability of the GFR estimates.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Pharmacotherapy. 2005 Jun;25(6):823-30 - PubMed
    1. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2003 Jul;52(1):13-8 - PubMed
    1. Anticancer Res. 1989 Jul-Aug;9(4):1121-8 - PubMed
    1. Am J Kidney Dis. 2009 Jul;54(1):33-42 - PubMed
    1. Nutrition. 1989 Sep-Oct;5(5):303-11; discussion 312-3 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources