Silva, Verônica T. Costa e

Accurate assessment of GFR is key in patients with cancer to guide drug eligibility, adjust dosing of systemic therapy, and minimize the risks of undertreatment and systemic toxicity. Several aspects of GFR evaluation in patients with cancer have been unclear, such as the choice of the GFR estimating equation and the overall lack of data on the reliability of new filtration markers, such as cystatin C. This uncertainty has led to concerns that inaccurate GFR estimation may have a large effect on clinical practice and research. Recent data have brought important developments to the field. The new and timely Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of CKD raised important considerations and provided guidance on key aspects of GFR evaluation in patients with cancer. The guidelines cover valid estimating equations, incorporation of cystatin C in GFR estimation, drawbacks of using race in GFR estimation, and acknowledge that non-GFR determinants of filtration markers may be prominent in patients with cancer, reducing the accuracy of GFR estimating equations, prompting greater utilization of GFR measurement. The aim of this review is to summarize advances in GFR evaluation in patients with cancer considering the new Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines and other recent data.

Accurate assessment of GFR is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dosing of systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. Up to 32% of patients with cancer have baseline CKD, and both malignancy and treatment may cause kidney injury and subsequent CKD. To date, there has been lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population. In this two-part statement from the American Society of Onco-Nephrology, we present key messages for estimation of GFR in patients with cancer, including the choice of GFR estimating equation, use of race and body surface area adjustment, and anticancer drug dose-adjustment in the setting of CKD. These key messages are based on a systematic review of studies assessing GFR estimating equations using serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer, against a measured GFR comparator. The preponderance of current data involving validated GFR estimating equations involves the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations, with 2508 patients in whom CKD-EPI using serum creatinine and cystatin C was assessed (eight studies) and 15,349 in whom CKD-EPI with serum creatinine was assessed (22 studies). The former may have improved performance metrics and be less susceptible to shortfalls of eGFR using serum creatinine alone. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the American Society of Onco-Nephrology Position Committee rated the certainty of evidence as low. Additional studies are needed to assess the accuracy of other validated eGFR equations in patients with cancer. Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment, we advocate for the use of validated GFR estimating equations incorporating both serum creatinine and cystatin C in patients with cancer. Measurement of GFR via exogenous filtration markers should be considered in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials.

e24143 Background: Accurate assessment of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is crucial to guiding drug eligibility, dose-adjusting systemic therapy, and minimizing the risks of both undertreatment and toxicity in patients with cancer. To date, there has been a lack of guidance to standardize approaches to GFR estimation in the cancer population based on the available evidence. We aim to present data on the first systematic review (SR) of GFR estimating equations in patients with cancer. Methods: We conducted a SR on behalf of the American Society of Onco-Nephrology (ASON) on the accuracy of equations to estimate GFR in adult patients with cancer, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We required that studies use a reference methodology as comparator involving measured GFR via urinary or plasma clearance of an exogenous filtration marker or carboplatin. Two search strategies focusing on studies using serum creatinine (Cr) and cystatin C (Cys) were developed. Risk of bias and quality assessment was performed for all studies. Results: A total of 39 studies (21,949 patients in total, 19,025 with solid cancers) were included. Studies assessing populations in Europe were most frequent (50%), followed by Asia (27%) and the remaining from Australia/New Zealand and North and South America. Risk of bias and quality assessment allocated 15 studies (38%) as low or very low quality, and 24 (62%) as low-moderate or moderate quality. The most commonly assessed GFR estimating equations included Cockroft-Gault (32 studies), Modification of Diet Renal Disease (MDRD) (24 studies), Chronic Kidney Disese Epidemiology Collaboration Study (CKD-EPI)Cr (22 studies), Wright (13 studies), CKD-EPICys (8 studies), CKD-EPICr-Cys (8 studies), and Jeliffe (8 studies). Given the importance of accurate and timely eGFR assessment and the evidence supporting the performance (i.e., accuracy) of the CKD-EPI incorporating both Cr and Cys, we suggest the use of this equation in patients with cancer (grade 2C). Where Cys is unavailable, CKD-EPICr is the next preferred equation given the supporting data for its performance and widespread availability. Since included studies were moderate quality or lower, the ASON rated the certainty of evidence as low. Also, additional data on clinical outcomes related to the selection of eGFR equations is needed. We suggest measurement of GFR via an exogenous filtration marker in patients with cancer for whom eGFR results in borderline eligibility for therapies or clinical trials (ungraded). Conclusions: Based on the results of this SR, we suggest use of contemporary methods for estimation of GFR (CKD-EPICr-Cys and CKD-EPICr-Cr) and avoidance of older and less accurate formulae such as Cockcroft-Gault.