Clinical Index Of Stable Febrile Neutropenia Research Articles

MANAGEMENT OF FEBRILE NEUTROPENIA IN LUNG CANCER

Febrile neutropenia (FN) is defined as an oral temperature of >38.3° C or two consecutive measures > 38° C within 2 hours accompanied by an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of 500/L or a predicted decrease below 500/L in individuals undergoing systemic chemotherapy for cancer. FN is one of the oncological emergencies that can influence cancer patients' outcomes since it can increase morbidity, treatment delays, decreased survival, and expanded costs. The incidence of FN is 3.7-28% in lung cancer patients. Mortality associated with FN episodes is 15%. FN risk factors include chemotherapy regimen, age, comorbidities, mucositis, performance status, and previous FN history. Validated predicted instruments such as The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) or The Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score could assist in risk assessment of FN and determine advanced management. Effective therapy of FN requires investigation of diagnosis as soon as possible and acknowledging the potential source of infection. The prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) and anti-microbials successfully reduced mortality due to FN.

Can Risk Stratification Tools Be Utilized to Safely Discharge Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Patients from the Emergency Department?

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN) is one of the more common oncological emergencies. Despite evidence in the oncology literature suggesting that low-risk cases of FN can be managed safely at home, most patients with FN who present to the emergency department (ED) are admitted. FN risk stratification methods, such as Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores, may be useful when considering patient disposition. We sought to address whether the existing body of literature is adequate to support the use of these methods when treating patients with FN in the ED. MethodsA PubMed search from January 1, 2016 to March 19, 2021 was performed using the following search strategy: “febrile neutropenia” OR (fever AND neutropenia)) AND (emerg* OR outpatient) AND (admit OR admission OR hospitalization). General review articles and case reports were omitted. Each of the articles selected underwent a structured review. ResultsThe search yielded 371 articles, which were independently screened for relevance by two authors, and 23 articles were selected for inclusion. MASCC score was used in 10 of the identified studies and each of these studies concluded that the score was useful in the ED. Most of the identified studies found that CISNE score had a higher sensitivity than MASCC score (96.7% vs. 32.9%, respectively), but a lower specificity (22.2% vs. 89.5%). ConclusionsFN risk stratifications tools, such as MASCC and CISNE scores, are supported by the existing literature and may be included as part of the decision-making process when considering patient disposition.

Can MASCC and CISNE scores predict delays of lung cancer chemotherapy after febrile neutropenia?

Febrile neutropenia (FN) during cancer chemotherapy can lead to morbidity and mortality. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and clinical index of stable febrile neutropenia (CISNE) scores have been widely used to predict the risk of severe medical complications in patients with FN; however, there are few tools for predicting chemotherapy delays or discontinuation after FN. Patients admitted to two university hospitals between 2014 and 2018 with a FN diagnosis during the first cycle of chemotherapy for lung cancer were reviewed retrospectively. Among 539 patients who received 813 courses of chemotherapy for lung cancer, 49 (9%) developed FN during the first treatment cycle. Although all the patients recovered from their primary infection, 19 patients (38.8%) developed serious medical complications, 11 (22.4%) were unable to resume chemotherapy and one (2.0%) declined to resume chemotherapy, and nine (18.4%) died within 90 days. Patients who failed to resume chemotherapy had a lower MASCC score (median 8.5 vs. 17, p < 0.01) and a higher CISNE score (median 3 vs. 1, p < 0.01) at the onset of FN. The specificity to predict the patient who failed to resume chemotherapy was 90% or more with MASCC score ≤9 or CISNE score ≥3, with the sensitivity of 61%. MASCC score ≤ 16 can also be a sensitive indicator with the sensitivity and specificity of 89 and 52%, respectively. The MASCC and CISNE scores are useful in identifying lung cancer patients who are unable to resume chemotherapy as scheduled after the onset of FN.

Scoring Systems Identifying the Low-Risk Febril Neutropenia Patients in the Emergency Department: Usefulness of MASCC, CISNE and qSOFA

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores in identifying the low-risk febrile neutropenia patients among patients with chemotherapy-associated neutropenia in the emergency department setting.&#x0D; Material and Method: The risk scores of the patients were calculated and divided into low-risk and high-risk categories according to the guidelines. Serious complications and 30-day mortality were recorded. Patients who survived and did not develop any serious complications were defined as low risk FN.&#x0D; Results: The median age of the patients was 63 years, and 56.3% were male. Of all patients, 50.6% had hematological malignancy. Blood culture positivity was detected in 31% of the patients. Of all patients, 51 (58.6%) were low-risk FN. The complication rate in patients was 40.2%, while the mortality rate was 25.3%. When evaluated according to the risk scores, 69 (79.3%) patients with qSOFA, 40 (46%) patients with MASCC and 7 (8.1%) patients with CISNE were classified as low risk. The qSOFA score had the highest sensitivity with 96.08%, MASCC had the highest PPV with 85%, and the CISNE score had the highest specificity with 88.89% in patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia.&#x0D; Conclusion: MASCC, CISNE and qSOFA scores have reasonable discriminating power in identifying low-risk neutropenia patients. The combined use of scoring systems with the clinical gestalt and communication with oncologists will further increase the percentage of the recognized low-risk neutropenia patients in the emergency department.

Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients

ObjectiveScoring systems have been developed to identify low risk patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) who may be candidates for outpatient management. We sought to validate the predictive accuracy of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score alone and in conjunction with alternative scoring systems for risk of complications among gynecologic oncology patients. MethodsWe conducted a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an academic gynecologic oncology service for FN. We examined the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value) of three scoring systems (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), CISNE cut-off 1 (Low risk = 0), CISNE cut-off 2 (Low risk = <3)), and the combination of MASCC and CISNE to predict complications: inpatient death, ICU admission, hypotension, respiratory/renal failure, mental status change, cardiac failure, bleeding, and arrhythmia. ResultsFifty patients were identified for study inclusion. No low-risk CISNE patients died during hospitalization. Fewer CISNE low-risk patients experienced complications compared to high-risk patients, regardless of cut-off. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the scoring systems were: CISNE 1–37.1%, 86.7%, 86.7%, 37.1%; CISNE 2–85.7%, 46.7%, 78.9%, 58.3%; MASCC-82.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, 62.5%; MASCC + CISNE 1–37.1%, 93.3%, 92.9%, 38.9%; MASCC + CISNE 2–80%, 73.3%, 87.5%, 61.1%. ConclusionsThe CISNE scoring system is an appropriate tool for the identification of patients with gynecologic cancers and FN who may benefit from close outpatient management. CISNE cut-off 2 performed comparably to the MASCC, but CISNE cut-off 1 had a higher specificity and positive predictive value.

The role of serum albumin/globulin ratio in combination with prognostic risk indexes of febrile neutropenia.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the serum albumin/globulin ratio (AGR) on the 30-day mortality of febrile neutropenia (FEN). The second aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of the combination of the AGR with the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) risk indexes on 30-day mortality of FEN. A retrospective study evaluating the effect of serum AGR, MASCC and CISNE scores on 30-day FEN mortality. A total of 137 FEN episodes in 120 patients were included in this study. Nineteen patients (14%) died within the first 30days of FEN episodes. The 30-day mortality rate was calculated as 4% in patients with high AGR and 23% in patients with low AGR (P=.002). According to the MASCC and CISNE risk scores, the mortality rates in low-risk patients were 8% and 6%, respectively, and in the high-risk group 22% and 29%, respectively (P=.024 vs P<.001). In the group of patients with MASCC <21 and CISNE ≥3, the 30-day mortality rate was 7%, when the AGR was >1.13, and in those with AGR ≤1.13 mortality rate increased to 50% (P=.012). A low AGR in a patient with FEN was found to be associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. Combining the AGR with MASCC and CISNE risk indexes might increase the predictive value of these scoring systems on 30-day mortality.

Accuracy of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores for predicting serious complications in adult patients with febrile neutropenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We compared the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores for identifying serious complications in febrile neutropenia patients. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to March 19, 2019. Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, and assessed quality. We included 26 studies, totalling 6617 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for MASCC < 21 was 55.6 % (95 % CI: 46.2 %-64.5%) and 86.0 % (95 % CI: 81.3 %-89.7 %), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for CISNE ≥ 3 was 78.9 % (95 % CI: 65.3 %-88.1 %) and 64.9 % (95 % CI: 49.6 %-77.7 %), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for CISNE ≥ 1 was 96.7 % (95 % CI: 93.6 %-98.3 %) and 22.2 % (95 % CI: 15.6 %-30.4 %), respectively. The CISNE score had higher sensitivity and may be more useful than the MASCC score in the acute setting.

Current management of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in adults: key points and new challenges: Committee of Neoplastic Supportive-Care (CONS), China Anti-Cancer Association Committee of Clinical Chemotherapy, China Anti-Cancer Association.

Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) is a potentially fatal and common complication in myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The timing and grade of CIN may play prognostic and predictive roles in cancer therapy. CIN is associated with older age, poor functional and nutritional status, the presence of significant comorbidities, the type of cancer, previous chemotherapy cycles, the stage of the disease, specific chemotherapy regimens, and combined therapies. There are many key points and new challenges in the management of CIN in adults including: (1) Genetic risk factors to evaluate the patient’s risk for CIN remain unclear. However, these risk factors urgently need to be identified. (2) Febrile neutropenia (FN) remains one of the most common reasons for oncological emergency. No consensus nomogram for FN risk assessment has been established. (3) Different assessment tools [e.g., Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score model, and other tools] have been suggested to help stratify the risk of complications in patients with FN. However, current tools have limitations. The CISNE score model is useful to support decision-making, especially for patients with stable FN. (4) There are still some challenges, including the benefits of granulocyte colony stimulating factor treatment and the optimal antibiotic regimen in emergency management of FN. In view of the current reports, our group discusses the key points, new challenges, and management of CIN.

Validation of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) model in febrile neutropenia patients visiting the emergency department. Can it guide emergency physicians to a reasonable decision on outpatient vs. inpatient treatment?

Advances in oncology have enabled physicians to treat low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in outpatient settings. This study was aimed to explore the usefulness of the CISNE model and identify better triage in the emergency setting. This is a retrospective cohort study on 400 adult FN patients presenting to the Emergency Department of National Cancer Center, Korea from January 2010 to December 2016. All had been treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for solid tumors in the previous 30 days. The primary outcome was the frequency of any serious complications during the duration of illness. Apparently stable patients numbered 299 (74.8%) of 400, and the remainder comprised clinically unstable patients. The stable patients fell into three cohorts according to the risk scores: CISNE I (low risk), 56 patients (18.7%); CISNE II (intermediate), 124 (41.5%) and CISNE III (high), 119 (39.8%). The primary outcome occurred in 10.7%, 19.4% and 33.6%, respectively, according to the cohort. Compared with the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index Score (MASCC RIS), CISNE I stratum had significantly lower sensitivity (0.22 vs. 0.95 of MASCC low risk) but higher specificity (0.91 vs. 0.17) to predict zero occurrence of the primary outcome. The CISNE model was useful for identifying low-risk FN patients for outpatient treatment. The combination of the CISNE and MASCC RIS may help emergency physicians cope with FN more confidently.

Comparison of the MASCC and CISNE scores for identifying low-risk neutropenic fever patients: analysis of data from three emergency departments of cancer centers in three continents.

Patients with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group with a minority developing serious medical complications. Outpatient management of low-risk febrile neutropenia has been shown to be safe and cost-effective. Scoring systems, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE), have been developed and validated to identify low-risk patients. We aimed to compare the performance of these two scores in identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic patients. We performed a pooled analysis of patients presenting with febrile neutropenia to three tertiary cancer emergency centers in the USA, UK, and South Korea in 2015. The primary outcome measures were the occurrence of serious complications. Admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) and 30-day mortality were secondary outcomes. The predictive performance of each score was analyzed. Five hundred seventy-one patients presented with febrile neutropenia. With MASCC risk index, 508 (89.1%) were classified as low-risk febrile neutropenia, compared to 60 (10.5%) with CISNE classification. Overall, the MASCC score had a greater discriminatory power in the detection of low-risk patients than the CISNE score (AUC 0.772, 95% CI 0.726-0.819 vs. 0.681, 95% CI 0.626-0.737, p = 0.0024). Both MASCC and CISNE scores have reasonable discriminatory value in predicting patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia. Risk scores should be used in conjunction with clinical judgment for the identification of patients suitable for outpatient management of neutropenic fever. Developing more accurate scores, validated in prospective settings, will be useful in facilitating more patients being managed in an outpatient setting.

Can Patients with Febrile Neutropenia Be Sent Home from the ED

The Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores are used to

Application of the MASCC and CISNE Risk-Stratification Scores to Identify Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenic Patients in the Emergency Department

Although validated risk-stratification tools have been used to send low-risk febrile neutropenic patients home from clinic and inpatient settings, there is a dearth of research evaluating these scores in the emergency department (ED). We compare the predictive accuracy of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores for patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia and presenting to the ED. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate all patients with febrile neutropenia (temperature ≥38°C [100.4°F], absolute neutrophil count <1,000 cells/μL) who presented to 2 academic EDs from June 2012 through January 2015. MASCC and CISNE scores were calculated for all subjects, and each visit was evaluated for several outcome variables, including inpatient length of stay, upgrade in level of care, clinical deterioration, positive blood culture results, and death. Descriptive statistics are reported and continuous variables were analyzed with Wilcoxon rank sum. During our study period, 230 patients presented with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. The CISNE score identified 53 (23%) of these patients as low risk and was highly specific in the identification of a low-risk cohort for all outcome variables (98.3% specific, 95% confidence interval [CI] 89.7% to 99.9%; positive predictive value 98.1%, 95% CI 88.6% to 99.9%). Median length of stay was shorter for low-risk versus high-risk CISNE patients (3-day difference; P<.001). The MASCC score was much less specific (54.2%; 95% CI 40.8% to 67.1%) in the identification of a low-risk cohort. Our results suggest that the CISNE score may be the most appropriate febrile neutropenia risk-stratification tool for use in the ED.

Performance of the clinical index of stable febrile neutropenia (CISNE) in different types of infections and tumors.

The clinical index of stable febrile neutropenia (CISNE) can contribute to patient safety without increasing the complexity of decision-making. However, febrile neutropenia (FN) is a diverse syndrome. The aim of this analysis is to assess the performance of CISNE according to the type of tumor and infection and to characterize these patients. We prospectively recruited 1383 FN episodes in situations of apparent clinical stability. Bonferroni-adjusted z tests of proportions were used to assess the association between the infections suspected at the time of onset and the type of tumor with the risk of serious complications and mortality. The performance of CISNE was appraised in each category using the Breslow-Day test for homogeneity of odds ratios and Forest Plots. 171 patients had a serious complication (12.3%, 95% confidence interval 10.7-14.2%). The most common initial assumptive diagnoses were: fever without focus (34.5%), upper respiratory infection (14.9%), enteritis (12.7%), stomatitis (11.8%), and acute bronchitis (10.7%). Lung and breast were the most common tumors, accounting for approximately 56% of the series. The distribution of complications, mortality, and bacteremia varies for each of these categories. However, Breslow-Day tests indicate homogeneity of the odds ratio of the dichotomized CISNE score to predict complications in all infection and tumor subtypes. Despite FN's clinical and microbiological heterogeneity, the CISNE score was seen to be consistent and robust in spite of these variations. Hence, it appears to be a safe tool in seemingly stable FN.

Infections in Cancer Patients

Infection is a common complication in cancer patients who receive cytotoxic chemotherapy and other targeted therapies. A clear understanding of the underlying host risk factors, the immunologic effects of specific cancer therapies, and the anatomic location of the tumor and its impact on surrounding structures helps predict the types of infection to which the host is most vulnerable. This review covers fever in the setting of neutropenia, infection risk with biological and targeted cancer therapy, and infections in patients with solid tumors. Figures show risk for fever and neutropenia, and empirical antibiotic algorithm for initial management of febrile neutropenia in patients at high risk for complications, radiographic findings associated with invasive fungal disease, a schematic of hepatitis B virus infection and reactivation after anti-CD20 therapy, and management of nonpurulent cellulitis in cancer patients. Tables list the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index score, the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scoring system, common bacterial pathogens that cause infection in neutropenic patients, assessment of specific signs and symptoms during febrile neutropenia, empirical antibiotic management of febrile neutropenia, criteria for addition of vancomycin to empirical antibiotic regimen for febrile neutropenia, and biological and targeted agents commonly used to treat hematologic malignancy and associated infections. This review contains 5 highly rendered figures, 7 tables, and 107 references

Prediction of serious complications in patients with seemingly stable febrile neutropenia: validation of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia in a prospective cohort of patients from the FINITE study.

To validate a prognostic score predicting major complications in patients with solid tumors and seemingly stable episodes of febrile neutropenia (FN). The definition of clinical stability implies the absence of organ dysfunction, abnormalities in vital signs, and major infections. We developed the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE), with six explanatory variables associated with serious complications: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 2 (2 points), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1 point), chronic cardiovascular disease (1 point), mucositis of grade ≥ 2 (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria; 1 point), monocytes < 200 per μL (1 point), and stress-induced hyperglycemia (2 points). We integrated these factors into a score ranging from 0 to 8, which classifies patients into three prognostic classes: low (0 points), intermediate (1 to 2 points), and high risk (≥ 3 points). We present a multicenter validation of CISNE. We prospectively recruited 1,133 patients with seemingly stable FN from 25 hospitals. Complication rates in the training and validation subsets, respectively, were 1.1% and 1.1% in low-, 6.1% and 6.2% in intermediate-, and 32.5% and 36% in high-risk patients; mortality rates within each class were 0% in low-, 1.6% and 0% in intermediate-, and 4.3% and 3.1% in high-risk patients. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves in the validation subset were 0.652 (95% CI, 0.598 to 0.703) for Talcott, 0.721 (95% CI, 0.669 to 0.768) for Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), and 0.868 (95% CI, 0.827 to 0.903) for CISNE (P = .002 for comparison between CISNE and MASCC). CISNE is a valid model for accurately classifying patients with cancer with seemingly stable FN episodes.