4.7 Article

Prevalence of renal insufficiency in cancer patients and implications for anticancer drug management - The renal insufficiency and anticancer medications (IRMA) study

期刊

CANCER
卷 110, 期 6, 页码 1376-1384

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.22904

关键词

abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease formula; Cockcroft-Gault; formula; creatinine clearance; renal insufficiency; serum creatinine; solid tumors

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The Renal Insufficiency and Cancer Medications (IRMA) study is a French national observational study. The results from this study of nearly 5000 patients demonstrated the high prevalence of renal impairment in a population of patients with solid tumors. METHODS. Every cancer patient who presented at oncology departments that participated in the study over at least I of 2 predefined periods during 2004 were included. Renal function was calculated using Cockcroft-Gault and abbreviated Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (aMDRD) formulae to estimate the prevalence of renal insufficiency (RI) according to the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative-Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes definition and stratification. Anticancer drugs were studied with regard to their potential renal toxicity and dosage adjustment. RESULTS. Of the 4684 patients from the 15 centers, 7.2% had serum creatinine levels > 110 pmol/L. However, when they were assessed using Cockcroft-Gault and aMDRD formulae, 57.4% and 52.9% of patients had abnormal renal function or RI, respectively. Of the 7181 anticancer drug prescriptions, 53.4% required dose adjustments for RI. Of the patients treated, 79.9% received at least 1 such drug. And 80.1% received potentially nephrotoxic drugs. CONCLUSIONS. RI was common in patients with cancer, and drug dosage adjustments often were necessary. Renal function should be evaluated in all cancer patients using either the Cockcroft-Gault formula or the aMDRD formula, including patients with normal serum creatinine levels. In patients who are at high risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据