4.6 Article

Predictive factors of poor prognosis in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 1151-1158

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-010-0928-4

关键词

Febrile neutropenia; Prognosis; Chemotherapy; Cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives We intended to determine the predictive factors of poor prognosis in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia (FN). Methods From January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008, 396 episodes of FN in 346 cancer patients were retrospectively analyzed. Clinical and laboratory findings and Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score were analyzed and correlated with outcome. Results Of the 396 episodes, 73 (18.4%) had serious medical complications including 15 (3.8%) deaths. There was significant difference between unfavorable and favorable outcomes in age, gender, hypotension, tachypnea, duration of fever <= 24 h before admission (44.4% vs. 61.3%), interval of <= 7 days since last chemotherapy (34.2% vs. 16.1%), and duration of neutropenia >= 4 days (34.2% vs. 15.8%; P<0.05 each), as did C-reactive protein (CRP; 15.0 vs. 7.5 mg dL(-1)) and platelet count (66.4x10(3) vs. 123.7x10(3) mm(-3); P<0.001 each). MASCC score was significantly lower in unfavorable outcomes than favorable outcomes (19.0 vs. 24.6, P<0.001). However, prophylactic antibiotics, treatment with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and history of FN were not associated with outcome. On multivariate analysis, MASCC risk-index score (OR 23.2, 95% CI 10.48-51.37), tachypnea (OR 3.61, 95% CI 1.44-9.08), thrombocytopenia (OR 3.41, 95% CI 1.69-6.89), increased CRP (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.62-6.45), and prolonged neutropenia (OR 2.52, 95% CI 1.21-5.25) were independent predictors of unfavorable outcomes. Conclusion MASCC risk-index score <21, tachypnea, thrombocytopenia, increased CRP, and prolonged neutropenia may be strongly associated with poor outcomes in cancer patients with FN.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据