ASN's Mission

To create a world without kidney diseases, the ASN Alliance for Kidney Health elevates care by educating and informing, driving breakthroughs and innovation, and advocating for policies that create transformative changes in kidney medicine throughout the world.

learn more

Contact ASN

1401 H St, NW, Ste 900, Washington, DC 20005

email@asn-online.org

202-640-4660

The Latest on X

Kidney Week

Please note that you are viewing an archived section from 2023 and some content may be unavailable. To unlock all content for 2023, please visit the archives.

Abstract: FR-PO239

GFR in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Face to Face Between Measured GFR (mGFR) and Estimated GFR (eGFR) in Onconephrology

Session Information

Category: Onconephrology

  • 1700 Onconephrology

Authors

  • Trevisani, Francesco, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Quattrini, Giulia, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Cinque, Alessandra, Biorek srl, Milan, Italy
  • Capitanio, Umberto, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Laurenti, Fabiana, Universita degli Studi dell'Aquila - Polo Coppito, L'Aquila, Abruzzo, Italy
  • Salonia, Andrea, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Bettiga, Arianna, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Pizzagalli, Giorgio, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Montorsi, Francesco, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
  • Di Marco, Federico, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milano, Lombardia, Italy
Background

Onco-nephrological patients deserve the highest attention in term of personalized medicine. Acute and chronic renal damages represent common major side effects, often as a results of drugs renal toxicities due to false dosage based on GFR. Therefore, a reliable assessment of renal function is mandatory. Aim of this study was to determine the extent of the error of eGFR common formulas compared to mGFR in onco-nephrology.

Methods

A consecutive cohort of 701 onco-nephrological patients (pts) was collected to compare the most used eGFR formulas (MDRD, CKD-EPI SCr 2012, CKD-EPI 2021 SCr, CKD-EPI Cys 2012, CKD-EPI Cys 2021, CKD-EPI Cys/SCr, Cockroft-Gault) with mGFR method (Iohexol Plasma Clearance). True positives and False positives were classified in CKD stages based on eGFR and mGFR. Comparisons between groups were performed using Wilcoxon ranks sum test for numerical variables and Pearson's Chi square test for categorical ones.

Results

Clinical data: overall median age was 66 years, median BMI 25, Male: 536, F: 165, Diabetes: 10.9%, Hypertension: 53.8%, CKD stage I: 3.7%, II: 25.5%, IIIA: 28%, IIIB: 27.5%, IV: 13.4%, V: 1.74%, mean Creatinine: 1,44 mg/dl, cystatin: 1,24. We reported a huge discrepancy between the eGFR formulas and mGFR values, suggesting the essential role of mGFR in the clinical decision making algorithm (Figures 1 and 2).

Conclusion

eGFR formulas showed a non-negligible error in all CKD stages classification in comparison to mGFR. In the onconephrological asset, the use of mGFR should be mandatory to obtain a tailored management.