MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and abbreviated modified diet in renal disease (MDRD) formulae in dosing of cancer drugs other than carboplatin

2007· article· en· W2964600451 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Jennings, Mário L de Lemos, Adeera Levin, Nevin Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple and Secondary Primary Cancers
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingRenal functionConcordanceCarboplatinUrologyCancerCreatinineInternal medicinePopulationChemotherapyCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2522 Background: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is often used to determine initial dosing of renally-excreted cancer drugs. Estimated GFR (eGFR) can be calculated using serum creatinine (SrCr) -based formulae such as CG and MDRD. MDRD is more accurate in non-cancer patients, does not require patient weight, and is reported automatically by all laboratories in British Columbia (BC). We previously showed that CG and MDRD have similar accuracy for carboplatin dosing in patients with gynecological malignancies. We now examine dosing of all renally-excreted cancer drugs in the general cancer population. Since this setting does not include routine measurement of GFR, we report the concordance of eGFR derived from CG and MDRD. Methods: Patient data were collected retrospectively at the BC Cancer Agency. The primary outcome was concordance of eGFR derived from CG and MDRD, using the method of Bland and Altman. A difference of ≥ 30% was assumed to be clinically significant because this difference would usually lead to dose adjustment based on reclassification of renal function. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients who would have received a different initial dose due to difference in eGFR. Each patient’s dose was determined from dose adjustment tables stated in specific treatment protocols. Results: 313 patients were evaluated: 40% male, median 56y, 67.5kg, 166cm, SrCr 74micromol/L. Median eGFR derived from CG and MDRD were 86.8mL/min and 87.6mL/min, respectively. A difference of ≥ 30% in eGFR was found in 17.9% (56/313) of patients. 8.6% (27/313) of patients would have received a different dose due to difference in eGFR; of these, 67% (18/27) would have received a higher dose. Conclusions: There is good concordance of eGFR derived from CG and MDRD for most cancer patients, with less than 10% of patients expected to receive a different initial dose of chemotherapy. MDRD may be a reasonable alternative to CG for dosing of any renally-excreted cancer drug. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMultiple and Secondary Primary CancersFrench-language works237,207