scholarly journals Risk Assessment and Treatment of Low-Risk Patients with Febrile Neutropenia

2006 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 533-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. V. Kern
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Risk Patients

Outcomes and Cost of Outpatient or Inpatient Management of 712 Patients With Febrile Neutropenia

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 606-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda S. Elting ◽  
Charles Lu ◽  
Carmelita P. Escalante ◽  
Sharon H. Giordano ◽  
Jonathan C. Trent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Outpatient Management ◽  
Single Episode ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Inpatient Management ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Mean Cost

Purpose We retrospectively compared the outcomes and costs of outpatient and inpatient management of low-risk outpatients who presented to an emergency department with febrile neutropenia (FN). Patients and Methods A single episode of FN was randomly chosen from each of 712 consecutive, low-risk solid tumor outpatients who had been treated prospectively on a clinical pathway (1997-2003). Their medical records were reviewed retrospectively for overall success (resolution of all signs and symptoms of infection without modification of antibiotics, major medical complications, or intensive care unit admission) and nine secondary outcomes. Outcomes were assessed by physician investigators who were blinded to management strategy. Outcomes and costs (payer's perspective) in 529 low-risk outpatients were compared with 123 low-risk patients who were psychosocially ineligible for outpatient management (no access to caregiver, telephone, or transportation; residence > 30 minutes from treating center; poor compliance with previous outpatient therapy) using univariate statistical tests. Results Overall success was 80% among low-risk outpatients and 79% among low-risk inpatients. Response to initial antibiotics was 81% among outpatients and 80% among inpatients (P = .94); 21% of those initially treated as outpatients subsequently required hospitalization. All patients ultimately responded to antibiotics; there were no deaths. Serious complications were rare (1%) and equally frequent between the groups. The mean cost of therapy among inpatients was double that of outpatients ($15,231 v $7,772; P < .001). Conclusion Outpatient management of low-risk patients with FN is as safe and effective as inpatient management of low-risk patients and is significantly less costly.

Safety and effectiveness of outpatient therapy in 596 low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia (FN)

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (16_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8116-8116
Author(s):  
L. Elting ◽  
C. Lu ◽  
C. Escalante ◽  
S. Giordano ◽  
J. Trent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Outpatient Therapy ◽  
Risk Patients

Predictive factors of bacteraemia in low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (9) ◽  
pp. 715-719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shin Ahn ◽  
Yoon-Seon Lee ◽  
Yeon Hee Chun ◽  
Kyung Soo Lim ◽  
Won Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Patients

scholarly journals Ambulatory Outpatient Management of patients with low risk febrile neutropaenia

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 178-181
Author(s):  
Timothy Cooksley ◽  
◽  
Mark Holland ◽  
Jean Klastersky ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Ambulatory Setting ◽  
Medical Complications ◽  
Mascc Score ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Reduced Risk ◽  
Avoidance Cost

Patients with febrile neutropenia are a heterogeneous group with only a minority developing significant medical complications. Scoring systems, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score, have been developed and validated to identify low risk patients. Caring for patients with low risk febrile neutropenia in an ambulatory setting is proven to be safe and effective. Benefits include admission avoidance, cost savings and reduced risk of nosocomial infections, as well as improved patient experience and satisfaction. Implementation of an ambulatory pathway for low risk febrile neutropenia provides an excellent opportunity for Acute Physicians and Oncologists to collaborate in delivering care for this group of patients.

scholarly journals Internal evaluation of risk stratification tool using procalcitonin and clinical risk factors in pediatric febrile neutropenia: the first step in a pilot quality improvement project

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Nessle ◽  
Thomas Braun ◽  
Sung Won Choi ◽  
Rajen Mody
Keyword(s):  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
Bacterial Infections ◽  
Decision Rules ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Blood Stream ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Internal Evaluation ◽  
Risk Patients

Risk stratification of pediatric febrile neutropenia (FN) is an established concept; the internal evaluation of a validated clinical decision rules (CDR) tool has not been well-described. In this study, restrictive criteria and procalcitonin were added to a recommended CDR for internal evaluation before implementation. Analysis of 577 FN episodes showed good sensitivity and negative predictive value in predicting blood stream infections (87.3%; 95.6%) and intensive care admissions (97.2%; 99.1%). There were no severe adverse events in low-risk patients with low procalcitonin; procalcitonin identified 3 low-risk patients with serious bacterial infections. The modified CDR with procalcitonin may assist in risk stratification.

The PARSC trial, a prospective study for the assessment of recurrence risk in stage II colon cancer (CC) patients using ColoPrint.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 678-678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
Jan Willem de Waard ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
John Marshall ◽  
Joost Klaase ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Prospective Study ◽  
Relapse Rate ◽  
Recurrence Risk ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Stage Ii Colon Cancer

678 Background: An 18-gene expression profile, ColoPrint, has been developed for identifying CC patients more likely to develop recurrent disease and who would be candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy. The gene signature was validated in in-silico datasets and independent patient cohorts of stage II and III patients. Uni-and multivariate analysis was performed on the pooled stage II patient set (n=320) who had a median follow-up of 70 months. ColoPrint identified two-third of the stage II patients (209/320) as low risk. The 3-year relapse-free survival was 94% for Low Risk patients and 79% for High Risk patients with a HR of 2.74 (95% CI 1.54 - 4.88; p=0.006). Moreover, the profile stratified patients independent of ASCO clinical risk factors. Methods: A prospective trial, PARSC (Prospective study for the Assessment of Recurrence risk in Stage II CC patients) using ColoPrint has been initiated. Objectives are: (1) to validate the performance of ColoPrint in estimating the 3-year relapse rate in patients with stage II colon cancer; (2) to compare the risk assessment in stage II patients using the ColoPrint profile vs. a clinical risk assessment based on Investigator’s assessment of risk and ASCO high-risk recommendations; (3) to investigate therapy as a potential confounding factor for ColoPrint results; and (4) to assess the performance of ColoPrint in estimating the 3-year relapse rate in patients with stage III colon cancer. Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18 years, adenocarcinoma of the colon, stage II and III, no prior neo-adjuvant therapy, no synchronous tumors, fresh tumor sample, and written informed consent. The treatment of the patient is at the discretion of the physician adhering to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-approved regimens or a recognized alternative. Results: The trial started in Sept. 2008 with currently 30 participating sites in 11 countries. Thus far, 288 eligible stage 2 and 251 stage 3 patients have been enrolled. Conclusions: The aim is to enroll 575 stage II patients to differentiate between 3 year RFS predicted by ColoPrint and clinical factors.

Immunoscore clinical utility to identify good prognostic colon cancer stage II patients with high-risk clinico-pathological features for whom adjuvant treatment may be avoided.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 487-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome Galon ◽  
Fabienne Hermitte ◽  
Bernhard Mlecnik ◽  
Florence Marliot ◽  
Carlo Bruno Bifulco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Tnm Classification ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Pathological Feature ◽  
Prognostic Features ◽  
Risk Patients

487 Background: Immunoscore Colon is an IVD test predicting the risk of relapse in early-stage colon cancer (CC) patients, by measuring the host immune response at the tumor site. It is a risk-assessment tool providing independent and superior prognostic value than the usual tumor risk parameters and is intended to be used as an adjunct to the TNM classification. Risk assessment is particularly important to decide when to propose an adjuvant (adj.) treatment for stage (St) II CC patients. High-risk stage II patients defined as those with poor prognostic features including T4, lymph nodes < 12, poor differentiation, VELIPI, bowel obstruction/perforation can be considered for adj. chemotherapy (CT). However, additional risk factors are needed to guide treatment decisions. Methods: A subgroup analysis was performed on the St II untreated patients (n = 1130) from the Immunoscore international validation study (Pagès The Lancet 2018). The high-risk patients (with at least 1 clinico-pathological high-risk feature) were classified in 2 categories using pre-defined cutoffs: Low Immunoscore versus High Immunoscore and their five-year time to recurrence (5Y TTR) was compared to the TTR of the low-risk patients (without any clinico-pathological high-risk feature). Results: Among the patients with high-risk features (n = 630), 438 (69.5%) had a High Immunoscore with a corresponding 5Y TTR of 87.4 (95% CI 83.9-91.0), statistically similar (logrank pv not stratified p > 0.42, wald pv stratified by center p > 0.20) to the TTR 89.1 (95% CI 86.1-92.1) observed for the 500 low-risk patients (with no clinico-pathological feature). Furthermore, 5Y TTR for these patients were statistically similar to those of St II patients with high-risk features and a High Immunoscore (n = 438), who received adj. CT (n = 162) (5Y TTR of 83.4 (95% CI 77.6-89.9). Conclusions: These data show that despite the presence of high-risk features that usually trigger adj. treatment, when not treated with CT, a significant part of these patients (69.5%) have a recurrence risk similar to the low risk patients. Therefore, the Immunoscore test could be a good tool for adj. treatment decision in St II patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document