Feasibility study of short hydration using oral rehydration solution in cisplatin including chemotherapy of lung cancer
© Sato et al. 2016
Received: 28 December 2015
Accepted: 25 February 2016
Published: 5 March 2016
Cisplatin (CDDP) is used as a key anticancer drug for solid cancers, including lung cancer. However, a large quantity of fluid replacement is required to prevent renal dysfunction. This requirement have made outpatient chemotherapies including CDDP administration less popular among the available therapeutic options. We designed a short-term hydration regimen combined with oral rehydration solution (ORS) that has a supplementary water ability equivalent to intravenous electrolyte maintenance infusion and investigated its safety and feasibility in the CDDP including chemotherapy.
The subjects received chemotherapy including CDDP administration (60–80 mg/m2) for untreated lung cancer were recruited. The intravenous hydration was infused at around 2000 mL on Day 1, and patients drank ORS at a dose of 1000 mL/day for 3 days. Any renal dysfunction, gastrointestinal symptoms or other tolerability variables pertaining to the remaining three cycles of this regimen were analyzed in the patients who were able to continue treatment after the second cycle.
The majority (29/35, 82.9 %) of patients completed intake of ORS for 3 days. The mean ± standard deviation of patient body-surface area-adjusted estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), serum creatinine (sCre) and urea nitrogen from the initial therapy to 1 month after the last administration changed from 79.8 ± 11.7–67.0 ± 16.9 mL/min (p = 0.15), 0.70 ± 0.13–0.85 ± 0.27 mg/dL (p = 0.02), and 14.3 ± 3.8–17.1 ± 5.4 mg/dL (p = 0.09), respectively. The CTCAE ver 4.0 grades 1 or 2 adverse events pertaining to renal function after the last administration were 2 (5.7 %)/2 (5.7 %) patients assessed by sCre, and 14 (40.0 %)/12 (34.3 %) patients assessed by eGFR, respectively. There was no patient with ≥3 grade renal dysfunction based on either evaluation.
Based on the results of this study, supplementary use of the ORS as a method of short-term hydration may be a feasible regimen for shortening infusion times and improving safety for those undergoing chemotherapy including CDDP administration.
KeywordCisplatin Oral rehydration solution Chemotherapy Renal dysfunction Short hydration
Recently, cancer chemotherapy in the outpatient setting has become more popular as it may improve the quality of life of cancer patients. The increased use of this treatment option has corresponded to the increase in its demand in cancer patients. However, outpatient chemotherapy, including administration of cisplatin (CDDP), a key anti-cancer drug, in lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy has not been a popular treatment option in Japan due to its requirement for large quantities of hydration over long durations to prevent renal dysfunction. In contrast, most other foreign countries have adopted short-term duration hydration regimens involving a minimum of approximately 2000 mL. However, CDDP administration using short-term hydration regimens has been associated with renal dysfunction in some cases and may lead to treatment discontinuation . Therefore, it is important to further investigate safety improvements to be considered when using CDDP administration and short-term hydration.
An oral rehydration solution (ORS) with a water-supplementing ability equivalent to that of intravenous electrolyte maintenance infusion was available to address dehydration due to a variety of conditions, including diarrhea. The pharmacologic effect of ORS is based on the cotransport of sodium and glucose in the small intestine. This results in effective water absorption based on the physiological movement of sodium during this cotransporting process . ORS is characterized by an abundance of electrolytes and lower levels of glucides than would be found in similar sports drinks. The effectiveness and safety of ORS in dehydration and in postoperative recovery have been confirmed and demonstrated equality with an intravenous maintenance infusion medium in humans [3, 4]. However, there have been no reports regarding the application of ORS as a form of oral hydration to facilitate renal drug excretion. We hypothesized that application of ORS in addition to chemotherapy, including CDDP administration, in outpatients may shorten infusion times and allow for safety improvement when ORS was used as a substitute for intravenous hydration, or added as a supplement to intravenous hydration. Regarding the possibility that ORS was more effective than normal oral water intake in the hydration accompanying CDDP administration, we performed our primary examination using animal models. Our results indicated that ORS drinking reduced renal dysfunction as compared with normal oral water in a CDDP-induced renal dysfunction rat model .
The current study was designed to assess the feasibility of using ORS in patients receiving chemotherapy, including CDDP administration, based on the results of our previous studies.
Subjects in this study who had received an initial diagnosis of lung cancer and elected to receive chemotherapy, including CDDP administration, at the Iwate Medical University hospital from May 2013 to December 2014 were recruited. The study entry conditions included normal renal function (creatinine clearance, ≥50 mL/min), availability for administration of CDDP, capability to adhere to dietary constraints and orally consume ≥1000 mL of water per day, performance status (PS) of 0 or 1, written agreement to enter the study, and age ≥18 years. The analysis of the study data was performed for patients who met all entry conditions and tolerated the first cycle of CDDP administration. The evaluation period was 1 month after up to four cycles.
CDDP administration regimen by the short hydration
Aprepitant (125 mg)
Palonosetron (0.75 mg) Dexamethasone (9.9 mg) diluted with Saline
Maintenance solution mixed MgSO4 (8 mEq)
VP-16, CPT-11, GEM, DTX, PEM diluted with Saline or 5%Glusosea
100 ~ 500 mL
10 ~ 90 min
Cisplatin 60 ~ 80 mg/m2 diluted with Saline
Flosemide (20 mg) diluted with Saline
Mentenance solution mixed MgSO4 (8 mEq)
As the primary endpoint, we evaluated renal function through levels of serum creatinine (sCre), urea nitrogen (BUN) and the Japanese body-surface area-adjusted estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) . These values were assessed just before the administration of each cycle and 1 month after the last administration. Changes in sCre levels and normal physique eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) were evaluated using CTCAE ver 4.0. sCre was evaluated as grade 0 (<1.5 times), 1 (≥1.5– < 2.0 times), 2 (≥2.0– < 3.0 times), or 3 (≥3.0 times) as compared with a baseline measurement made just before administration of the first cycle. eGFR was evaluated as grade 0 (≥80 mL/min/1.73 m2), 1 (<80– ≥ 60 mL/min/1.73 m2), 2 (<60– ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2), or 3 (<30– ≥ 15 mL/min/1.73 m2).
As secondary endpoints, we evaluated nausea, vomiting, dietary intake, completion rate and discomfort following 3 days ORS intake during the first cycle. Vomiting episode and nausea were assessed using a six grade nausea scale (0 = no nausea, 5 = severe nausea). A diet intake ratio was used to assess the quantity of average dietary intake as compared with before the initiation of therapy, and was evaluated as a gastrointestinal symptom. Discomfort from 3 days of ORS intake was evaluated using a six grade scale (0 = no discomfort, 5; = severe discomfort). These endpoints were self-reported by patients in writing every 24 h for 5 days from the initiation of CDDP administration.
Statistics and ethical evaluation
The comparisons between the numerical values for sCre, BUN and eGFR collected before (control) and after study drug administration were performed as multiple comparisons using Dunnett’s t-tests. A bilateral hazard ratio less than 5 % was determined to represent a significant difference. This study was conducted with the permission (H23-58) of the Iwate Medical University School of Medicine Ethical Review Board.
n = 35
male;28 : female;7 (80 %:20 %)
65.7 ± 5.7
Performance status (ECOG)
3 (8.6 %)
32 (91.4 %)
Small cell carcinoma
17 (48.6 %)
12 (34.3 %)a
3 (8.6 %)
2 (5.7 %)
Large cell carcinoma
1 (2.9 %)
Clinical stage (UICC TNM)
1 (2.9 %)
2 (5.7 %)
1 (2.9 %)
6 (17.1 %)
3 (8.6 %)
21 (60.0 %)
1 (2.9 %)
6 (17.1 %)
11 (31.4 %)
18 (51.4 %)
CDDP dosage (mg/m2)
69.7 ± 8.9
CDDP cumulative dosage (mg/m2)
278.6 ± 63.3
4.1 ± 0.9
CDDP dose reduction (%)
21 (60 %)
1 stage reduction
8 (23 %)
2 stage reduction
6 (17 %)
CDDP + MTA ± BV
12 (34 %)
CDDP + VP-16
12 (34 %)
CDDP + CPT-11
5 (14 %)
CDDP + GEM
5 (14 %)
CDDP + DTX
1 (4 %)
Hydration volume (mL)
1937 ± 193
Infusion time (hr)
4.8 ± 1.1
0.7 ± 0.1
14.3 ± 3.8
Adjusted eGFR (mL/min)
79.8 ± 9.9
Change in the renal function
Gastrointestinal symptom and drinking evaluation of ORS
It was also determined that renal dysfunction could occur at high frequencies (28–36 %) when including the slight impairments caused by ≥50 mg/m2 of CDDP administration, even when hydration and diuresis were conducted adequately [6, 7]. The renal dysfunction caused by CDDP was attributed to accumulation of CDDP in renal tubules and associated tubular cell necrosis . Hydration reduces renal dysfunction by diluting the urinary CDDP concentration, as well as shortening the contact time in the renal tubule by early excretion. In particular, the efficient dilution and excretion attributable to the hydration of the CDDP free-form represented much of the early excretion (within 2 h after administration), which was considered to be significant, as the form of CDDP not bound to proteins in the blood has been implicated in glomerular toxicity . Preservation of the early urine flow by the hydration seems to be required for prevention of renal dysfunction during CDDP administration. Although hydration seemed beneficial in general, there was some concern over whether renal dysfunction could be even further reduced if the hydration increased the volume. The results of one study suggested that increasing hydration volumes had no influence on the incidence of renal dysfunction by showing no differences when hydration volumes during CDDP administration were more than 2000 mL or not . Some CDDP administration regimens with infusion volumes of approximately 2000 mL have been termed short-term hydration, and have been investigated vigorously. Tiseo et al. were the first to report the general idea of short-term hydration, suggesting a total infusion volume of 2100 mL for 4.25 h in addition to chemotherapy including ≥75 mg/m2 of CDDP in lung cancer patients . Five (4.6 %) of the 107 patients discontinued treatment due to renal dysfunction. However, the definition of short-term hydration was not clear, and wide variations in variables, including hydration volume, composition of the infusion, addition of magnesium, rank order and the use of diuretics, were observed in subsequent studies. Additionally, safety results from short-term hydration experiments performed in Japanese prospective studies generally showed that grade ≥2 renal dysfunction was detected at a rate of less than 10 % [11, 12]. Therefore, we had designed a regimen including the combined use of ORS with existing short-term hydration for the purpose of improving the safety issues associated with renal dysfunction over prolonged infusion times.
Renal dysfunction, as evaluated by the sCre, was only observed to occur in two patients and did not exceed grade 2 in any patient using our method combining ORS with an intravenous infusion of an average of 1930 mL (4.7 h). On the other hand, there were more patients (34.3 %) with grade 2 renal dysfunction after their last CDDP administration as evaluated by eGFR when compared with sCre; however, this was not an unexpected finding, as there were already 15 patients (42.9 %) with decreased renal function equal to grade 1 before the first cycle. Importantly, most of the evaluated patients did not develop severe renal dysfunction (grade ≧3), and completed all four scheduled chemotherapy cycles. The outcomes for the patients showing grade 2 renal dysfunction did not exhibit further progression, and some of these patient even showed signs of recovery. The antiemetic effect of this treatment seemed to be good based on the nausea grade, the number of vomiting instances, and lack of effects on dietary intake. The high compliance and tolerability of ORS drinking were confirmed, as all patients were available for 1000 mL of ORS drinking on the first day. Side effects possibly attributable to ORS drinking were only slightly observed as abdominal distension, nausea and diarrhea. It should be noted, however, that these symptoms were considered as a side effect of the chemotherapy.
The safety of this regimen considered as follows. Nine of 47 patients who received initial chemotherapy were not able to receive second cycle for a treatment-related side effect. Also, reduction of CDDP was required for 40 % of patients after the second cycle. Most of reasons were due to myelosuppression. The side effects such as the myelosuppression occurred even if short hydration supplemented with ORS was used. The initial chemotherapy should be carried out in hospitalization, and adequate attention seemed to be required for side effects such as the myelosuppression in the subsequent chemotherapy. It should also be noted, however, that some patients with renal dysfunction up to grade 2 were observed even when ORS was used as a supplement to intravenous transfusion in this study. Although our results were suggestive of the safety of this regimen, the study was not sufficiently powered to conclude that supplementary use of the ORS was able to relieve renal dysfunction due to CDDP. The mean age of the study participants was comparatively high (65.7 years), and the 42.9 % of the patients with <80 mL/min in eGFR at study entry may have influenced the study results. However, improving the safety of CDDP for these patient groups remains an important goal for those in clinical practice. Therefore, a modification of the hydration regimen was thought to be necessary in order to further reduce the renal dysfunction associated with the use of CDDP. The use of diuretics, such as mannitol or furosemide  and Na, Cl rich infusion [14, 15], as well as magnesium supplementation , have all been demonstrated as important for the prevention of renal dysfunction due to CDDP. In this study, we used furosemide due to its rapid diuretic effect; however, it was not administered before CDDP administration. It may be the case that use of furosemide before CDDP administration may produce an earlier diuretic effect. Additionally, maintenance infusion was used for hydration, and its Na and Cl quantity was 25 % saline. It may have been more useful to employ higher amounts of saline for hydration. We consider the factor which might influence the renal function of the patients as follows. Patients with hypoalbuminemia in particular have been shown to experience renal dysfunction rather easily as a result of CDDP treatment . It should be noted, however, that hypoalbuminemia < 3.0 g/dL was not detected in the patient with sCre elevation of grade 2 in this study. Also, the poor PS might influence renal function. However, the patients who received CDDP were all PS >1 in this study. Therefore, it was thought that there was little effect of the PS on the results. Combination use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAIDs) was considered as the factor which influenced renal dysfunction [17, 18]. Four patients used NSAIDs during duration of chemotherapy routinely. Three of four patients had a grade aggravation evaluated by eGFR. Therefore, combination use of NSAIDs might influence renal function in these patients. Renal function as evaluated by sCre may result in underestimations because the biosynthesis of creatinine decreases with the muscle degradation that accompanies the aging process (the so-called creatinine blind). We used sCre, eGFR and BUN as parameter of renal function in this study to investigate the complementarity of these results.
Oral hydration using ORS as a substitute for water was thought to be useful on the initial CDDP administration day for at least two reasons. First, hydration is possible before an infusion begins and can be administered anywhere. Secondly, the excretion of the CDDP protein-free form, which exists at its highest levels in the early stage of CDDP administration, was promoted pharmacologically due to its rapid water absorption. ORS remained useful during the remainder of the CDDP regimen because it was available for hydration in a non-intravenous manner, highly accessible in drug stores without a prescription, low in cost and safe with rare side effects, including diarrhea.
We demonstrated the potential of short-term hydration using ORS as a well-tolerated, safe tool to supplement intravenous hydration during CDDP administration. Reconsideration of current hydration regimens, as well as one or more noninferiority studies with or without ORS, seems necessary in light of our study findings.
common terminology criteria for adverse events
estimated glomerular filtration rate
oral rehydration solution
pemetrexed sodium hydrate
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Tiseo M, Martelli O, Mancuso A, Sormani MP, Bruzzi P, Di Salvia R, et al. Short hydration regimen and nephrotoxicity of intermediate to high-dose cisplatin-based chemotherapy for outpatient treatment in lung cancer and mesothelioma. Tumori. 2007;93:138–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gavin N, Merrick N, Davidson B. Efficacy of glucose-based oral rehydration therapy. Pediatrics. 1996;98:45–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kitagawa S, Matsumoto T, Ikenoue M, Omori Y, Kamimura O, Kitagawa N. Effectiveness of OS-1 for water and electrolyte supplementation in elderly dehydrated patients. Jpn Pharmacol Ther. 2003;31:855–68.Google Scholar
- Goseki N, Hiranuma S, Yamnazaki S, Maruyama M, Nakajima K, Gen T, et al. Effectiveness of OS-1, an oral rehydration solution, for water and electrolyte supplementation following laparoscopic cholecystectomy Jpn. Pharmacol Ther. 2003;31:959–76.Google Scholar
- Sato J, Takahashi K, Hino K, Kudo K. A study of the protective effect of oral rehydration solution on cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity in rats. Jpn J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2014;40:17–27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yao X, Panichpisal K, Kurtzman N, Nugent K. Cisplatin nephrotoxicity: a review. Am J Med Sci. 2007;334:115–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Schilsky RL. Renal and metabolic toxicities of cancer chemotherapy. Semin Oncol. 1982;9:75–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Townsend DM, Deng M, Zhang L, Lapus MG, Hanigan MH. Metabolism of Cisplatin to a nephrotoxin in proximal tubule cells. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:1–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sasaki Y, Tamura T, Eguchi K, Shinkai T, Fujiwara Y, Fukuda M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of (glycolate-0,0′)-diammine platinum (II), a new platinum derivative, in comparison with cisplatin and carboplatin. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1989;23:243–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stewart DJ, Dulberg CS, Mikhael NZ, Redmond MD, Montpetit VA, Goel R. Association of cisplatin nephrotoxicity with patient characteristics and cisplatin administration methods. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 1997;40:293–308.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Horinouchi H, Kubota K, Itani H, Taniyama TK, Nakamichi S, Wakui H, et al. Short hydration in chemotherapy containing cisplatin (≥75 mg/m2) for patients with lung cancer: a prospective study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43:1105–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hotta K, Takigawa N, Hisamoto-Sato A, Ichihara E, Kudo K, Uchida K, et al. Reappraisal of short-term low-volume hydration in cisplatin-based chemotherapy: results of a prospective feasibility study in advanced lung cancer in the Okayama Lung Cancer Study Group Trial 1002. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013;43:1115–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Santoso JT, Lucci 3rd JA, Coleman RL, Schafer I, Hannigan EV. Saline, mannitol, and furosemide hydration in acute cisplatin nephrotoxicity: a randomized trial. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2003;52:13–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kawamura J, Soeda A, Yoshida O. Nephrotoxicity of cis-diamminedichloroplatinum (II) (cis-platinum) and the additive effect of antibiotics: morphological and functional observation in rats. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1981;58:475–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tanizawa K, Takaya M, Miura Y, Taguchi K, Endo H, Teramachi H, et al. Investigation of serum creatinine rise in patients after cisplatin therapy -Influence of hydration and patient characteristics―. Jpn J Pharm Health Care Sci. 2012;38:401–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bodnar L, Wcislo G, Gasowska-Bodnar A, Synowiec A, Szarlej-Wcisło K, Szczylik C. Renal protection with magnesium subcarbonate and magnesium sulphate in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer after cisplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy: a randomised phase II study. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2608–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perneger TV, Whelton PK, Klag MJ. Risk of kidney failure associated with the use of acetaminophen, aspirin, and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1675–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gooch K, Culleton BF, Manns BJ, Zhang J, Alfonso H, Tonelli M, et al. NSAID use and progression of chronic kidney disease. Am J Med. 2007;120:e1–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar