A new prognostic model for chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a new prognostic model for febrile neutropenia (FN). METHODS: This study comprised 1001 episodes of FN: 718 for the derivation set and 283 for the validation set. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed with unfavorable outcome as the primary endpoint and bacteremia as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: In the derivation set, risk factors for adverse outcomes comprised age ≥ 60 years (2 points), procalcitonin ≥ 0.5 ng/mL (5 points), ECOG performance score ≥ 2 (2 points), oral mucositis grade ≥ 3 (3 points), systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg (3 points), and respiratory rate ≥ 24 breaths/min (3 points). The model stratified patients into three severity classes, with adverse event rates of 6.0 % in class I (score ≤ 2), 27.3 % in class II (score 3-8), and 67.9 % in class III (score ≥ 9). Bacteremia was present in 1.1, 11.5, and 29.8 % of patients in class I, II, and III, respectively. The outcomes of the validation set were similar in each risk class. When the derivation and validation sets were integrated, unfavorable outcomes occurred in 5.9 % of the low-risk group classified by the new prognostic model and in 12.2 % classified by the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index. CONCLUSIONS: With the new prognostic model, we can classify patients with FN into three classes of increasing adverse outcomes and bacteremia. Early discharge would be possible for class I patients, short-term observation could safely manage class II patients, and inpatient admission is warranted for class III patients.

Chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia prophylaxis with biosimilar filgrastim in elderly versus non-elderly cancer patients: Patterns, outcomes, and determinants (MONITOR-GCSF study).

BACKGROUND: Myelotoxic chemotherapy is associated with chemotherapy-induced (febrile) neutropenia (CIN/FN). The MONITOR-GCSF study evaluated biosimilar filgrastim (Zarzio®) prophylaxis patterns, associated outcomes, and determinants. We performed stratified analyses comparing elderly and non-elderly patients. METHODS: Comparative (elderly/non-elderly) analysis of demographics and clinical status, prophylaxis, associated CIN/FN outcomes (CIN grade 4 [CIN4], FN, CIN/FN-related hospitalizations and chemodisturbances, composite), and, per hierarchical modeling, determinants thereof evaluated at the patient- and cycle-level. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both cohorts in prophylaxis initiation/duration and associated outcomes, but proportionately more elderly patients were correctly-prophylacted and fewer over-prophylacted. Common determinants of poor CIN/FN outcomes included concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis, impaired performance status, and any grade CIN in a previous cycle, whereas common determinants of good outcomes included over-prophylaxis and prophylaxis initiation within 24-72h. In the elderly, female gender, liver/renal/cardiovascular disease, secondary prophylaxis, and under-prophylaxis were associated with poorer outcomes. In the non-elderly, CIN4 at baseline or in a prior cycle was associated with poorer CIN/FN outcomes, and higher biosimilar filgrastim dose and, perhaps counter-intuitively, under-prophylaxis with better outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adequate GCSF support is essential for all patients, but especially for elderly patients with serious chronic disease, certainly, if concomitant antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated and if a CIN4 episode occurred in a prior cycle. The potential impact of impaired performance status, especially ECOG≥2 at chemotherapy start or a worsening to such during chemotherapy; under-prophylaxis, including inadequate secondary prophylaxis, should be considered in elderly patients. Timely GCSF initiation and over-prophylaxis is associated with lower rates of adverse CIN/FN events in elderly and non-elderly patients, and should be further evaluated in prospective randomized trials.

Autoimmune and other acquired neutropenias.

This educational review addresses the diagnostic evaluation of patients for autoimmune and other forms of acquired neutropenia, including the futility of deconstructing the overlap of chronic "autoimmune," "benign," and "idiopathic" categories. Isolated neutropenias caused by infection, drugs, and immunologic disorders are also addressed. Discussion of management options emphasizes a conservative approach, with largely supportive care for these mostly benign and self-limited disorders.