Search

Background: In the era of precision medicine, determining reliable renal function assessment remains a critical and debatable issue, especially in nephrology and oncology. Summary: This paper delves into the significance of accurately measured Glomerular Filtration Rate (mGFR) in clinical practice, highlighting its essential role in guiding medical decisions and managing kidney health, particularly in the context of renal cancer (RC) patients undergoing nephrotoxic anti-cancer drugs. The limitations and advantages of traditional GFR estimation methods, primarily using serum biomarkers like creatinine and cystatin C, are discussed, emphasizing their possible inadequacy in cancer patients. Specifically, newer formulae designed for GFR estimation in cancer patients may not perform at best in RC patients. The paper explores various methods for direct GFR measurement, including the gold standard inulin clearance and alternatives like iohexol plasma clearance. Key Message: Despite the logistical challenges of these methods, their implementation is crucial for accurate renal function assessment. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for continued research and innovation in GFR measurement methodologies to improve patient outcomes, particularly in populations with complex medical needs.

Introduction: An accurate assessment of renal function is needed in the majority of clinical settings. Unfortunately, the most used estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) formulas are affected by significant errors in comparison to gold standards methods of measured GFR (mGFR). Objective: The objective of the study is to determine the extent of the error of eGFR formulas compared to the mGFR in different specific clinical settings. Methods: A total retrospectively consecutive cohort of 1,320 patients (pts) enrolled in 2 different European Hospitals (Center 1: 470 pts; Center 2: 850 pts) was collected in order to compare the most common eGFR formulas used by physicians with the most widespread mGFR methods in daily clinical practice (Iohexol Plasma Clearance -Center 1 [mGFR-iox] and Renal Scintigraphy -Center 2 [mGFR-scnt]). The study cohort was composed by urological, oncological, and nephrological pts. The agreement between eGFR and mGFR was evaluated using bias (as median of difference), precision (as interquartile range of difference) accuracy (as P30), and total deviation index. Results: The most accurate eGFR formula in the comparison with gold standard method (Iohexol plasma clearance) in Center 1 was represented by s-creatinine and cystatin C combined Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration-cr-cy, even though the P30 is reduced (84%) under the threshold of 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Similar results were found in Center 2, with a wider discrepancy between mGFR-scnt and eGFR formulas due to the minor accuracy of the nuclear tool in respect to the mGFR-iox. Conclusions: The loss of accuracy observed for the formulas at lower values of GFR suggests the mandatory use of gold standards methods as Iohexol Plasma Clearance to assess the correct status of renal function for critical cases. The center 2 showed lower levels of agreement between mGFR and eGFR suggesting that the errors are partially accounted for the Renal Scintigraphy technique too. In particular, we suggest the use of mGFR-iox in oncological urological and nephrological pts with an eGFR lower than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.