Search

Background Oncology clinicians are now routinely provided with an estimated glomerular filtration rate on pathology reports whenever serum creatinine is requested. The utility of using this for the dose determination of renally excreted drugs compared with other existing methods is needed to inform practice. Patients and methods Renal function was determined by [Tc99m]DTPA clearance in adult patients presenting for chemotherapy. Renal function was calculated using the 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (4v-MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), Cockcroft and Gault (CG), Wright and Martin formulae. Doses for renal excreted cytotoxic drugs, including carboplatin, were calculated. Results The concordance of the renal function estimates according to the CKD classification with measured Tc99mDPTA clearance in 455 adults (median age 64.0 years: range 17–87 years) for the 4v-MDRD, CKD-EPI, CG, Martin and Wright formulae was 47.7%, 56.3%, 46.2%, 56.5% and 60.2%, respectively. Concordance for chemotherapy dose for these formulae was 89.0%, 89.5%, 85.1%, 89.9% and 89.9%, respectively. Concordance for carboplatin dose specifically was 66.4%, 71.4%, 64.0%, 73.8% and 73.2%. Conclusion All bedside formulae provide similar levels of concordance in dosage selection for the renal excreted chemotherapy drugs when compared with the use of a direct measure of renal function. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Intrathecal drug administration is an important component of the management of malignancy and symptom control. This route of administration reduces systemic adverse effects, but can increase the risk of local adverse effects such as arachnoiditis. It is accepted practice that any spinal injection should not contain any preservatives (such as benzyl alcohol and parabens-containing compounds). The intrathecal administration of solutions preserved with benzyl alcohol has been shown in case studies to increase the risk of adverse neurological events. Available data do not support the safety of intrathecal injection of products preserved with parabens; rather, they demonstrate a need for further investigation. Steps should be taken to ensure that preservative-free products are used. Staff involved with the preparation and administration of intrathecal preparations need to be educated about the risks associated with preservatives in this setting.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the correlation between body surface area (BSA) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measured by Tc-99m DTPA clearance in adult patients with cancer., Methods: GFR was determined by Tc-99m DTPA clearance in adult patients with cancer. Height and actual body weight were measured. Ideal body weight was calculated. BSA was calculated using the Du Bois and Du Bois linear method using both actual and ideal body weight., Results: Included in the study were 122 patients. The mean GFR measured by Tc-99m DTPA clearance was 87 ml/min (range 30-174 ml/min). The mean BSA (actual weight) was 1.76 m2 (median 1.73 m2, range 1.31-2.58 m2). The mean BSA (ideal body weight) was 1.63 m2 (median 1.63 m2, range 1.20-2.00 m2). The overall correlation between BSA (actual weight) and GFR in this adult population was r = 0.24, and the 95% confidence interval was 0.06-0.4. The correlation between BSA (ideal body weight) and GFR was r = 0.22. The correlation between BSA and GFR excluding patients with a BSA < 1.5 m2 or > 2.0 m2 was 0.12. When patients with GFR < 50 ml/min or > 100 ml/min were excluded, the correlation with BSA was 0.07. The correlations between GFR and height, actual weight and ideal weight were 0.22, 0.21 and 0.22, respectively., Conclusions: This study demonstrated a poor correlation between GFR determined by Tc-99m DTPA clearance and BSA calculated using the Du Bois and Du Bois linear method. The 95% confidence interval for the correlation between BSA and GFR was 0.06-0.4 indicating that a strong applicable clinical correlation is very unlikely.

Using molecular modeling, adenosine receptor ligands were fitted together to maximize correlations between the three most important factors controlling binding to the receptor, namely steric, hydrophobic, and electrostatic complimentarily. Structure-activity relationships can be explained by three binding domains on the receptors. These are hydrophobic, aromatic, and ribose binding domains. We propose that the N6, C2, and C8 hydrophobic binding domains are not discreet but occupy the same region of the receptor.