2 (1.6) 31 (24.0) However, this tool can never replace professional medical advice. Shibata, K., Yasuda, Y., Kobayashi, R., Ando, Y., Shimokata, T., Kamiya, H., Hayashi, M., Maruyama, S., Matsuo, S., Nakao, M., Tsuchiya, T. and Teramachi, H. : Renal function evaluation in patients with cancer who were scheduled to receive carboplatin or S-1. (1) derived the dosage formula in three stages. Bland-Altman plots of carboplatin doses prescribed and calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation (A), carboplatin doses prescribed and calculated by the Jelliffe equation (B), carboplatin doses prescribed and calculated by the MDRD equation (C), and carboplatin doses prescribed and calculated by the J-MDRD equation (D). Total MPE>0 R2=0.2692 y=90.32+0.84x 64.419.2 endstream endobj 134 0 obj <. << 24 (18.6) MPE-Jelliffe MDRD Click here for full notice and disclaimer. Based on a retrospective analysis in a previous study (16), it has been suggested that the same dosing formula should also be of value in studies of high-dose carboplatin. y= -52.59+1.33x 8 (6.2) MPE-MDRD London Gynaecological Oncology Group. 36 (27.9) The uniqueness of carboplatin as a chemotherapy drug is in the fact that the systemic drug exposure produced by any dose in a patient can be reasonably estimated on the basis of his or her renal function. 0 (0.0) 1.60.2 Jelliffe, R.W. Height (cm), meanSD 14 (10.9) 38 (29.5) Table 2 74 (57.4) MPE and MAPE between prescribed carboplatin dose and estimated carboplatin doses by four different equations for GFR -0.114.4* endstream endobj startxref Supported in part by the Byrne Foundation and by Public Health Service grant CA05826-35 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. If your patient is overweight or obese (BMI 25 kg/m) consider adjusting body weight for your carboplatin dose calculator. Total Jiang, H., Zhang, X., Chen, J., Zhang, L., Xiong, J., Zhong, L., Yu, F., Qian, J., Yu, L., Wang, X., Shi, G., Deng, J. and Xu, N. : A study of weekly docetaxel and carboplatin as first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. where IBW stands for ideal body weight and CBW stands for current weight. Prescribed In our phase I study, the carboplatin dose was escalated with the use of AUCs of 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 28, and 32 mg/mL per minute. 0.0070 To further assess the agreement between prescribed and calculated carboplatin doses, Bland-Altman plots were created by graphing the association between means and differences (Fig. Copyright The Pharmaceutical Society of Korea. 60 (46.5) : Flat dosing of carboplatin is justified in adult patients with normal renal function. J-MDRD 129 (100.0) /Creator (Xerox 4112) Jelliffe, R.W. Merino-Sanjun, M., Monteiro, J.F., Porta-Oltra, B., Maestu, I., Almenar, D. and Jimnez-Torres, N.V. : Effect of age on system exposure and haematological toxicity of carboplatin in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. endobj Gemcitabine and Black, C.M. 54 (56.8) 86 (66.7) Sequential dose-intensive paclitaxel, ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide salvage therapy for germ cell tumor patients. 38 (29.5) 36 (37.9) First, all necessary data for the analysis in this study were retrospectively acquired by reviewing patients EMRs, and the renal functions of patients were not directly measured by radiolabeled isotopes. Relationship between prescribed carboplatin dose and estimated carboplatin doses by four different equations for GFR 508.6143.7* 30 (23.3) 152.85.100 This information is not intended to replace clinical judgment or guide individual patient care in any manner. Total : Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. 165.76.300 MPE=0 In other words, the impact of this violation is expected to be more severe for higher values of AUC. 2 (1.6) 43 (33.3) 57.310.8 7|nlS Dn'v<4oA5A1S@"SDi|Kuc`/fT)L]*kSCEjK+skD\pb!iJHJ/!_E;t+hJ!`ih^xXb"hZR(n5tbU8Vqp3l"q 77 (59.7) 48 (37.2) According to studies of the MDRD formulas accuracy, this formula may more accurately estimates GFRs than the Cockcroft-Gault formula in non-cancer patients with CKD; conversely, the Cockcroft-Gault formula is likely to be more accurate than the MDRD formula in cancer patients.18,21-25), When calculated with the Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe, and MDRD formulae, carboplatin doses were overestimated compared with actual prescribed doses; however, using the J-MDRD formula led to an underestimation of the dose. GFR, glomerular filtration rate; MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; J-MDRD, MDRD for Japanese. MDRD 49.614.4 0 (0.0) This dosing calculator adjusts for renal dysfunction by using the Cockcroft-Gault formula to estimate GFR. Mean age was 65.0 years, and mean height, weight, BMI, and BSA were 162.3 cm, 61.1 kg, 23.2 kg/m2, and 1.6 m2, respectively. MPE-MDRD, MPE between prescribed dose and estimated dose by MDRD Docetaxel 0 (0.0) This model will have constant error variance for all levels of AUC. We also discuss the related published literature and recommend practicing caution in its use for a high-dose setting. Small cell lung cancer 1 (0.8) In this study, we compared the doses of carboplatin calculated by the Calvert formula based on estimated GFRs using four different GFR equations with the actual dose which physicians had prescribed to lung cancer patients. 0.0120 Cockcroft-Gault (%) To avoid this situation, a new model could be devised with AUC as an independent variable: where i is a random error term with mean zero and variance 2. : The Power of Renal Function Estimation Equations for Predicting Long-Term Kidney Graft Survival: A Retrospective Comparison of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Equations. Kang, H.S., Choi, S.A., Yoo, S.H., Lee, B.K. hb``` B" ea86NpY5NFs:Rr^ XP@ What is the maximum recommended carboplatin dose? Data from a new clinical trial with patients dosed by their body-surface area will be needed for this modeling. Levey, A.S., Bosch, J.P., Lewis, J.B., Greene, T., Rogers, N. and Roth, D. : A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. The model was reported to underpredict AUC by about 20% (1). MPE=0 Bar-Sela, G., Kaidar-Person, O., Mari, F., Assady, S. and Haim, N. : Evaluation of carboplatin dosing in non-small cell lung carcinoma patients using Calvert formula and Cockroft and Gault equation for glomerular filtration rate estimation. Another caution deals with inference pertaining to the levels of the independent variable that fall outside the range of original observations. Total Target carboplatin AUC values of 5 and 7 mg/ml/min are recommended. Choi, H.Y., Joo, D.J., Song, M.K., Kim, M.S., Park, H.C., Kim, Y.S. 0 (0.0) Newell DR, Siddik ZH, Gumbrell LA, Boxall FE, Gore ME, Smith IE, et al. 39 (30.2) Belani CP, Kearns CM, Zuhowski EG, Erkmen K, Hiponia D, Zacharski D, et al. 1 (0.8) 46 (35.7) With this podcast calculator, we'll work out just how many great interviews or fascinating stories you can go through by reclaiming your 'dead time'! p-value MDRD MPE=0 Other than the above cautions related to usual linear regression theory, the most important deviation involves the formulation of a model for a specific response (dose/AUC by GFR) and then using it differently in prediction (dose by AUC and GFR). Prescribed 20 (58.8) 0 (0.0) Based on a sample of size n, estimates of a and b can be obtained with the use of the least-squares theory, and the fitted equation can be used for predicting the mean response of y for a new value of x = xnew. Rossi, A., Di Maio, M., Chiodini, P., Rudd, R.M., Okamoto, H., Skarlos, D.V., Frh, M., Qian, W., Tamura, T., Samantas, E., Shibata, T., Perrone, F., Gallo, C., Gridelli, C., Martelli, O. and Lee, S.M. non-renal carboplatin clearance) in our patient group were not available to us, so we could not estimate the carboplatin dose more accurately. 0 (0.0) 99 (76.7) Second, measures of carboplatin pharmacokinetic data (i.e. 1. More studies of quantification of renal absorption are also necessary. 1). : Transcription inhibition by platinum-DNA cross-links in live mammalian cells. In stage III, the authors attempted to improve on the underprediction by using the data from stage II and revising the dosing formula as follows (with the error terms given in the parentheses representing the standard errors of estimates of slope [i.e., 0.93] and the intercept [i.e., 26] given below): and was widely used in the next decade (19891999) for dosing carboplatin. R2=0.4391 and Huitema, A.D. : Carboplatin dosing in overweight and obese patients with normal renal function, does weight matter?. 76 (58.9) 64.011.2 0 (0.0) Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. 1.70.1 0.8550 0.8880 y=3.49+1.09x and Earl, H.M. : Evaluation of glomerular filtration rate estimation by Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe, Wright and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) formulae in oncology patients. We conducted a MEDLINE search with key words of Calvert's Formula, in an attempt to examine the range of its application. 0 (0.0) 77 (59.7) 65.48.9 (1), The dose and the AUC for each patient were varying in stage I; hence, the composite variable yi is a random variable. (%) /BitsPerComponent 1 R2=0.8990 https://doi.org/10.17480/psk.2020.64.2.156, CrCl=[(140age)*weight*(1(0.15*sex))]/(SCr*72), CrCl=[(98(0.8*(age20)))*BSA*(1(0.1*sex))]/(SCr*1.73), IBW (male)=49.9+[0.89*(height152.4)]; IBW (female)=45.4+[0.89*(height152.4)], Anticancer drugs co-administered with carboplatin, n (%). The second and more serious flaw is rooted in the underlying assumption of linear regression theory. In the study by Calvert et al. 63.222.1 129 (100.0) 0 (0.0) and Hall, P.M. : Assessing glomerular filtration rate by estimation equations in kidney transplant recipients. 0 (0.0) 38 (29.5) The package insert that comes with carboplatin in Korea recommends a starting dose of 400 mg/m2 on the basis of BSA for cancer patients with normal kidney functions, and a reduction of 20-25% for cancer patients with impaired renal functions. 2). 3rd ed. hbbd```b``3@$Sd"5"`d "d}6`0Y &M$H% J@i] LRR"A"5`AdJq Z^F&0 tv LU&5n?tx..#e{iJCG:/,,IZ[CW + #W eo% and Wiltshaw, E. : Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. /Subtype /Image 1.00.3 Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. Unfortunately, only 22% (10 of 45 studies) compared the target AUC and measured AUC (615). (1), one cannot be sure about the accuracy of that patient's dosing based on this formulation. Female (n=34) 1 (0.8) (carbo calculator). MPE=0 0 (0.0) 161 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<1440D4D0647FC84396F08AD1F4BE61C9>]/Index[133 50]/Info 132 0 R/Length 128/Prev 686715/Root 134 0 R/Size 183/Type/XRef/W[1 3 1]>>stream 2 (1.6) Cockcroft-Gault Evaluation of formulas using the serum creatinine level to calculate the optimal dosage of carboplatin. Randomized trial of dose-intensity with single-agent carboplatin in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. *Evaluated by simple regression analysis. As you can see, the maximum dose depends mostly on the target AUC. 16 (12.4) 1 (0.8) R2=0.8422 This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties. MPE<0 90 (69.8) Paclitaxel and carboplatin in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase II toxicity, response, and survival analysis. 31 (24) MPE<0 465.8127. Third, a more diverse study population using carboplatin for cancer treatments should be included in future investigations. MAPE Carboplatin dose,mg BSA (Du Bois) (m2), meanSD This carboplatin calculator (carboplatin dose calculator) estimates your total carboplatin dose (in mg) using the Calvert formula). 0 (0.0) MPE>0 MPE>0 2 (2.1) MPE, mean percentage error; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; J-MDRD, MDRD for Japanese. 65.09.5 How to use the carboplatin calculator? 1976. 23 (67.6) In this brief communication, we draw attention to the fact that linear regression is easy to fit, but we suggest that some caution should be practiced in its use for prediction. Search for other works by this author on: \[{dose}/{AUC}\ {=}\ {[}1.21({\pm}0.19)\ {\times}\ GFR\ {+}\ 23{(}{\pm}16{)}{]}.\], \[dose\ {=}\ AUC\ {\times}\ {(}{[}1.2\ {\times}\ GFR{]}\ {+}\ 20{)}.\], \[dose\ {=}\ AUC\ {\times}\ {[}0.93{(}{\pm}0.08{)}\ {\times}\ GFR\ {+}\ 26{(}{\pm}6{)}{]}.\ \], \[dose\ {=}\ AUC\ {\times}\ {(}GFR\ {+}\ 25{)}\], \[\mathit{y}_{\mathit{i}}\ {=}\ \mathit{a}\ {+}\ \mathit{b}\ {\times}\ \mathit{x}_{\mathit{i}}\ {+}\ \mathit{{\epsilon}i}\], \[{\hat{\mathit{y}}}_{\mathit{new}}\ {=}\ {\hat{\mathit{a}}}\ {+}\ {\hat{\mathit{b}}}\ {\times}\ \mathit{x}_{\mathit{new}}\], \[{\sigma}^{2}\ \left[\frac{1}{n}\ {+}\ \frac{{(}\mathit{x}_{\mathit{new}}\ {-}\ {\bar{\mathit{x}}}{)}^{2}}{{{\Sigma}_{i\ {=}\ 1}^{n}}{(}\mathit{x}_{\mathit{i}}\ {-}\ {\bar{\mathit{x}}}{)}^{2}}\right],\], \[\mathit{y}_{\mathit{i}}\ {=}\ {dose_{\mathit{i}}}/{AUC_{\mathit{i}}}\ and\ \mathit{x}_{\mathit{i}}\ {=}\ GFR_{\mathit{i}}.\], \[dose_{\mathit{i}}\ {=}\ {\hat{\mathit{a}}}\ {\cdot}\ AUC_{\mathit{i}}\ {+}\ {\hat{\mathit{b}}}\ {\cdot}\ GFR_{\mathit{i}}\ {\cdot}\ AUC_{\mathit{i}}\], \({dose_{\mathit{i}}}/{AUC_{\mathit{i}}}\), \[\ dose_{\mathit{i}}\ {=}\ \mathit{a}\ {\cdot}\ AUC_{\mathit{i}}\ {+}\ \mathit{b}\ {\cdot}\ GFR_{\mathit{i}}\ {+}\ \mathit{c}\ {\cdot}\ GFR_{\mathit{i}}\ {\cdot}\ AUC_{\mathit{i}}\ {+}\ {\epsilon}^{{^\prime}}_{\mathit{i}}\]. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this article. Cockcroft-Gault 0 (0.0) 30 (23.3) 23.23.80 stream Carmichael J, Allerheiligen S, Walling J. 23 (17.8) There are two limitations in this development process. %%EOF Please note that this calculator should not be used for patients on dialysis. GFR, glomerular filtration rate; MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; J-MDRD, MDRD for Japanese. Phase I trial, including pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic correlations, of combination paclitaxel and carboplatin in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. <0.0001 If you log out, you will be required to enter your username and password the next time you visit. 28 (21.7) Possible causes for lower measured AUC include error during sampling, assay analysis, GFR determination, and AUC calculation. 30 (23.3) Kaag, D. : Carboplatin dose calculation in lung cancer patients with low serum creatinine concentrations using CKD-EPI and Cockcroft-Gault with different weight descriptors. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of carboplatin administered in a high-dose combination regimen with thiotepa, cyclophosphamide and peripheral stem cell support. 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Murray, B., Bates, J. and Buie, L. : Impact of a new assay for measuring serum creatinine levels on carboplatin dosing. 32 (33.7) The data presented in Fig. Madhu Mazumdar, Alex Smith, William P. Tong, Robert J. Motzer, Calvert's Formula for Dosing Carboplatin: Overview and Concerns of Applicability in High-Dose Setting , JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 92, Issue 17, 6 September 2000, Pages 14341436, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/92.17.1434. *p<0.001 by post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test. In this study, we compared putative carboplatin doses calculated by the Calvert formula using GFRs estimated from four different equations with the actual dose prescribed. This carboplatin AUC calculator uses the above method and AUC to find your carboplatin dose. Doses calculated based on GFR estimated using the MDRD formula showed the greatest bias and lowest precision. Craig, A.J., Samol, J., Heenan, S.D., Irwin, A.G. and Britten, A. : Overestimation of carboplatin doses is avoided by radionuclide GFR measurement. >> MPE Bias was evaluated as mean percentage error (MPE), which was defined as the percentage difference between prescribed and estimated carboplatin doses (MPE=[(prescribed carboplatin doseestimated carboplatin dose)/estimated carboplatin dose] 100%).14-16) A positive bias indicated overdose of carboplatin, whereas a negative bias indicated an underdose. MPE-J-MDRD 1 0 obj *7,3Z_hUT5,z ll) M!gih#n8c ?e@x35[j"h;P8FM[RDHl{jd}Lf BBS}W6RNS%ZW083j*;@+@wI}!p@u&DSJ{ 4 (3.1) 0 (0.0) so that the dependent random variable is dosei and not \({dose_{\mathit{i}}}/{AUC_{\mathit{i}}}\) . The patients clinical characteristics are summarized in Table 2. Jelliffe Matsuo, S., Imai, E., Horio, M., Yasuda, Y., Tomita, K., Nitta, K., Yamagata, K., Tomino, Y., Yokoyama, H. and Hishida, A. : Revised equations for estimated GFR from serum creatinine in Japan. /Type /XObject Among 500 cancer patients using carboplatin during the study period, 129 with lung cancer who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the analysis (Fig. MPE=0 46 (35.7) : Evaluation of carboplatin dosing method. 1 (0.8) 423.3108.2* /Width 2200 In this context, AUCi is not a part of the dependent random variable but is an independent random variable. R2=0.8825 This approach does not satisfy the underlying assumptions of a linear model and could greatly affect prediction. 46 (35.7) Others y=61.73+0.77x MPE<0 The variability of the predicted y as given in equation 7 with 2 replaced by AUCi2 2 will increase as higher AUC is targeted. Mean estimated GFRs of the Cockcroft-Gault, Jelliffe, MDRD, and J-MDRD formulae were 65.7, 63.2, 74.1, and 57.5 mL/min, respectively. Froissart, M., Rossert, J., Jacquot, C., Paillard, M. and Houillier, P. : Predictive performance of the modification of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations for estimating renal function. MPE-J-MDRD 52 (40.3) The CDAI calculator (Crohn's Disease Activity Index calculator) determines the severity of symptoms in patients with Crohn's disease. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between the prescribed carboplatin dose and the calculated carboplatin doses. Plot of measured versus target area under the curve (AUC). 63.322.9 0 (0.0) 60.321.3 24.64.90 Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. MPE-MDRD 129 (100.0) That analysis used data obtained from eight patients treated with 8001600 mg/m2 of carboplatin and indicated that the AUCs predicted by the dosage formula stayed within 20% of the observed AUC, with 28 mg/mL per minute being the highest AUC achieved. The coefficients of determination (R2) were between 0.3002 and 0.9962. 22 (17.1) A higher proportion of the MPE values classified by MDRD (76.7%) formula were in MPE <0 categories than that of the MPE values classified by Jelliffe (40.3%) formula. 0 (0.0) : Letter: creatinine clearance: bedside estimate. Shimokata, T., Ando, Y., Yasuda, Y., Hamada, A., Kawada, K., Saito, H., Matsuo, S., Kondo, M., Imaizumi, K. and Hasegawa, Y. : Prospective evaluation of pharmacokinetically guided dosing of carboplatin in Japanese patients with cancer. 1 provide evidence of large discrepancies between target and measured AUCs. Here, we describe the derivation of Calvert's formula and point out some limitations in its development, including violation of an underlying assumption of linear regression theory. 62.510.2 Characteristics of patients *p<0.001 by post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test. Total (n=129) Jelliffe Ford C, Spitzer G, Reilly W, Adkins D. A phase II study of repetitive cycles of dose-intense carboplatin plus paclitaxel chemotherapy and peripheral blood stem cells in metastatic breast cancer. MPE-Jelliffe, MPE between prescribed dose and estimated dose by Jelliffe Gore M, Mainwaring P, A'Hern R, MacFarlane V, Slevin M, Harper P, et al. R2=0.3002 It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide, This PDF is available to Subscribers Only. Nagao, S., Fujiwara, K., Imafuku, N., Kagawa, R., Kozuka, Y., Oda, T., Maehata, K., Ishikawa, H., Koike, H., Aotani, E. and Kohno, I. : Difference of carboplatin clearance estimated by the Cockroft-Gault, Jelliffe, Modified-Jelliffe, Wright or Chatelut formula. We use the following Calvert formula to calculate kidney function: AUC - the Area Under the Curve for carboplatin; and. 31 (24) Our experience had been problematic with prediction (17). As a result, the variance of the random error term changes to AUCi2 2 rather than 2 violating the assumption of constant variance. Ghazal-Aswad S, Tilby MJ, Lind M, Baily N, Sinha DP, Calvert AH, Newell DR. Pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation of carboplatin in epithelial ovarian cancer: effect on drugplasma AUC and peripheral blood drugDNA adduct levels. /Height 1700 /Producer (Xerox 4112) >> Etoposide and Kim, B.S. These discrepancies may be explained by the fact that each of the GFR estimation methods was derived from different data. Table 3 presents the relationship between the prescribed carboplatin dose and the estimated carboplatin doses based on GFRs calculated using four different formulae. The study which evaluated carboplatin pharmacokinetics in Japanese patients suggested that the Calvert formula might overestimate carboplatin doses in adult Japanese patients, and this study supposed that a constant value of 25, indicating the non-renal clearance of carboplatin in the Calvert formula, was likely to be too large for adult Japanese patients.20,31) Non-renal carboplatin clearance may also be lower in Korean cancer patients than in Western counterparts. For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription. Carboplatin dosage: prospective evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. 50 (38.8) Paclitaxel 10.79.6* All analyses were implemented using SAS version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). 0.7410 Correlations between prescribed and four estimated carboplatin doses were analysed by linear regression analysis, and the doses were also compared to each other by post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank test. This situation is reflected in a low correlation of r = .27 (r = .37 without the one outlying observation). 182 0 obj <>stream /Filter /CCITTFaxDecode /DecodeParms << /K -1 /Columns 2200 >> Please confirm that you would like to log out of Medscape. Serum creatinine (mg/dL), meanSD MPE>0 Langer CJ, Leighton JC, Comis RL, O'Dwyer PJ, McAleer CA, Bonjo CA, et al. 452.5117.4* <0.0001 0 (0.0) Precision was assessed by mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), calculated as the absolute value of MPE (MAPE=[|(prescribed carboplatin doseestimated carboplatin dose)/estimated carboplatin dose|] 100%).14-16) The greater the MAPE, the less precise the calculation of carboplatin dose. 38 (29.5) MPE>0 Ardizzoni, A., Boni, L., Tiseo, M., Fossella, F.V., Schiller, J.H., Paesmans, M., Radosavljevic, D., Paccagnella, A., Zatloukal, P., Mazzanti, P., Bisset, D. and Rosell, R. : Cisplatin- versus carboplatin-based chemotherapy in first-Line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: an individual patient data meta-analysis. 1 (0.8) This is an interesting area for subsequent and prospective studies. The mean body weight of Japanese patients in the J-MDRD study was 60 kg when compared with 79 kg in the MDRD study, and mean BMIs in the J-MDRD study and the MDRD study were 23 and 27 kg/m2, respectively.29,30) In the present study, mean body weight and BMI of the study population were 61 kg and 23 kg/m2, respectively. adjusted BW [kg] = (IBW) + 0.4 * (CBW IBW). MPE and MAPE between prescribed carboplatin dose and estimated carboplatin doses by four different equations for GFR. Estimated GFR (mL/min), meanSD While modifications of GFR measurement have been proposed, no alternative or updated dosing formula has been found. 0.0110 However, since more than half of the carboplatin dose is excreted through the kidneys within 24 hours, AUC-based carboplatin dose determination with the Calvert formula instead of BSA-based or flat dosage methods could result in improving therapeutic efficacy and safety.2,8,9,20) To estimate GFR more accurately with regard to carboplatin dosing in Korean cancer patients, a GFR estimation formula should be developed based on the data from Korean cancer patients, but to our knowledge, developing such a formula has rarely been considered in Korea. 2020 QxMD Software Inc., all rights reserved. BMI, body mass index; BSA, body surface area; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease; J-MDRD, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease modified for Japanese. Characteristic 0 (0.0) 1.50.1 Applied linear statistical models.
