Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Early and late renal adverse effects after potentially nephrotoxic treatment for childhood cancer

  1. Sebastiaan L Knijnenburg1,*,
  2. Renée L Mulder2,
  3. Antoinette YN Schouten-Van Meeteren2,
  4. Arend Bökenkamp3,
  5. Hester Blufpand3,
  6. Eline van Dulmen-den Broeder4,
  7. Margreet A Veening4,
  8. Leontien CM Kremer2,
  9. Monique WM Jaspers1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group

Published Online: 8 OCT 2013

Assessed as up-to-date: 20 MAY 2012

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008944.pub2


How to Cite

Knijnenburg SL, Mulder RL, Schouten-Van Meeteren AYN, Bökenkamp A, Blufpand H, van Dulmen-den Broeder E, Veening MA, Kremer LCM, Jaspers MWM. Early and late renal adverse effects after potentially nephrotoxic treatment for childhood cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD008944. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008944.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Academic Medical Center, Medical Informatics, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  2. 2

    Emma Children's Hospital / Academic Medical Center, Department of Paediatric Oncology, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  3. 3

    VU University Medical Center, Department of Pediatric Nephrology, Amsterdam, Netherlands

  4. 4

    VU University Medical Center, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Oncology/Hematology, Amsterdam, Netherlands

*Sebastiaan L Knijnenburg, Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, P.O. Box 22660, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, Netherlands. s.l.knijnenburg@amc.uva.nl.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 8 OCT 2013

SEARCH

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.1 Chronic kidney disease/renal insufficiency as defined by authors.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.2 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 90 ml/min/1.73m2. The outcome presented for Stefanowicz 2009 is the estimated GFR using the Schwartz formula, for Stefanowicz 2011 the GFR measured by Tc-99m clearance.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.3 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 80 mL/min/1.73 m2.
[Figure 6]
Figure 6. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.4 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 70 mL/min/1.73 m2.
[Figure 7]
Figure 7. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.5 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m2.
[Figure 8]
Figure 8. Forest plot of comparison: 2 Mean glomerular filtration rate in mL/min/1.73 m2 at least 1 year after diagnosis, outcome: 2.1 Mean (estimated) GFR in studies that included internal or healthy controls. The outcome presented for Stefanowicz 2009 is the estimated GFR using the Schwartz formula.
[Figure 9]
Figure 9. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.6 Proteinuria as defined by authors.
[Figure 10]
Figure 10. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.7 Serum phosphate/hypophoshataemia as defined by the authors.
[Figure 11]
Figure 11. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.8 Tubular phosphate regulation parameters as defined by the authors.
[Figure 12]
Figure 12. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.7 Serum magnesium/hypomagnesaemia as defined by the authors. The study of Skinner 2009 was not included in the figure due to missing numbers of included survivors.
[Figure 13]
Figure 13. Forest plot of comparison: 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, outcome: 1.10 Blood pressure.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 1 Chronic kidney disease / renal insufficiency as defined by authors.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 2 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 90 mL/min/1.73m2.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 3 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 80 mL/min/1.73m2.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 4 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 70 mL/min/1.73m2.
[Analysis 1.5]
Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 5 (Estimated) glomerular filtration rate < 50 mL/min/1.73 m2.
[Analysis 1.6]
Analysis 1.6. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 6 Proteinuria as defined by authors.
[Analysis 1.7]
Analysis 1.7. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 7 Serum phosphate / hypophoshataemia as defined by the authors.
[Analysis 1.8]
Analysis 1.8. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 8 Tubular phosphate regulation parameters as defined by the authors.
[Analysis 1.9]
Analysis 1.9. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 9 Serum magnesium / hypomagnesaemia as defined by the authors.
[Analysis 1.10]
Analysis 1.10. Comparison 1 Prevalence of renal dysfunction, Outcome 10 Blood pressure.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Mean (estimated) glomerular filtration rate in mL/min/1.73m2 at least 1 year after diagnosis, Outcome 1 Mean (estimated) glomerular filtration rate in studies that included internal or healthy controls.