Changes in renal function following nedaplatin-containing chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma unfit for cisplatin

2Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The present study evaluated the impact of nedaplatin-containing chemotherapy on renal function in 35 patients with urothelial carcinoma (UC) between 2001 and 2014 who were unfit for cisplatin treatment. As comparative controls, the present study also examined 35 patients with the same disease who underwent cisplatin-containing chemotherapy during the same period. The changes in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) prior to and following the administration of nedaplatin during each cycle of chemotherapy was investigated. The present study also reported the overall response rates and adverse events in each group. A total of 31 cycles of the gemcitabine/nedaplatin regimen and 66 cycles of the methotrexate/epirubicin/neda-platin regimen were administered. In the nedaplatin group, the mean eGFRs prior to and following chemotherapy were 45.4 and 47.8 ml/min/1.73 m 2 , respectively. The eGFR of the post-chemotherapy group was significantly increased (P<0.001). On the other hand, in the cisplatin group, the eGFR following chemotherapy was significantly lower than the rate prior to chemotherapy (P<0.001). The overall response rates were 30.4 and 66.7% in the nedaplatin and cisplatin groups, respectively. In the two groups, myelosuppression was the most common side effect, but the occurrence rates in both groups were similar, and these adverse events were manageable. With regard to nephrotoxicity, nedaplatin-containing chemotherapy for cisplatin-unfit patients with UC is a safe treatment modality.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nagasawa, M., Kageyama, S., Yoshida, T., Okinaka, Y., Kubota, S., Wada, A., … Kawauchi, A. (2019). Changes in renal function following nedaplatin-containing chemotherapy in patients with urothelial carcinoma unfit for cisplatin. Oncology Letters, 17(2), 2551–2556. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2018.9859

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free