Observational studyBritish journal of cancer2025
Accuracy of glomerular filtration rate estimates among patients with cancer.
Observational study in British journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevention and Management of Carboplatin Nephrotoxicity.Cancers · 2026Review
- Kidney function changes associated with trastuzumab use in women with breast cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation is a key issue in determining cancer treatment eligibility and dosing of treatments with narrow therapeutic index. Yet, little is known about the accuracy of GFR estimation among people with cancer in routine care.
methodsIn a cross-sectional study including 1611 adults with cancer referred for 1837 determinations of measured GFR (mGFR), we assessed the accuracy of estimated GFR based on creatinine (eGFRcr), cystatin C (eGFRcys) and their combination (eGFRcr-cys). Accuracy was reported as percentage of patients with estimated values within 30% of mGFR; bias and precision as the median and interquartile range of eGFR-mGFR, respectively. Dosing accuracy was assessed by calculating expected dose of carboplatin for area under the curve of 5 mg/mL/min using the Calvert formula.
resultsMedian age was 68 (IQI 61 to 74) years, 38.5% were female with mean mGFR 75 (SD 30) mL/min; 17% had metastatic disease. Accuracy, bias and precision were best for eGFRcr-cys. Using eGFRcr would recommend an "overdose" of carboplatin in 10-20% of participants: this was 3-4 times less common using eGFRcr-cys.
conclusioneGFRcr-cys equations provide the most accurate estimates of mGFR in patients with cancer, with potential to improve dosing accuracy substantially compared to eGFRcr.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.