MANAGEMENT OF FEBRILE

NEUTROPENIA IN CHILDREN WITH

CANCER

JULIUS A. LECCIONES, MD
Executive Director
Philippine Children’s Medical Center
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
 Febrile Neutropenia in Children
With Cancer

 Neutropenic sepsis is a serious and potentially life-

threatening complication of cancer chemotherapy
 Leading cause of infectious complications in
patients receiving chemotherapy accounting for
most chemotherapy-associated morbidity and
mortality
 Compromises treatment outcomes by causing dose
reductions and treatment delays
 Febrile Neutropenia in Children
With Cancer
 Frequent use of dose-intense and dose-dense
chemotherapy has escalated the risk of neutropenic
sepsis
 Prompt initiation of empirical antibiotic treatment in
febrile neutropenia is the single most important
advance in infectious disease supportive care leading
to improved survival
 Before this approach in early 1970s, mortality form G-
infections is about 80%; now declined to 10%-40%
 Febrile Neutropenia in Children
With Cancer
 Approximately 85%-90% of pathogens documented
to be associated with new fevers in neutropenia
patients are G+ and G- bacteria
 Several guidelines for the management of FN have
been developed, mostly for adult cancer patients
 FN specifically focused on children with cancer
important: The International Pediatric Fever and
Neutropenia Guideline Panel (2012)
 FN Guidelines

 Japan Febrile Neutropenia Study Group

 European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO)
 Australian Consensus Panel
 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)
 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA)
 Infectious Disease Working Party of the German Society
of Hematology and Oncology
 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
 Febrile Neutropenia in Children
With Cancer

 Initial presentation of febrile neutropenia

 On-going management: ≥ 24 – 72 hrs after

initiation of empiric antibacterial treatment

 Empiric antifungal treatment: ≥ 96 hrs after

initiation of empiric antibacterial
treatment
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Risk Stratification

 Important implications in terms of

management

 Treatment strategies for low-risk patients

might be simplified (more convenient and less
expensive) without compromising efficacy

 Stratification based on various variables,

including response to treatment
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Risk Stratification
 The first prospectively validated risk assessment
tool for FN patients was developed by Talcott et
al (1992)
 Klatersky et al (2000) postulated a scoring
system based on the logistic equation of the
Multinational Association for Supportive Care in
Cancer (MASCC) predictive model
 The need for hospital-based IV therapy can be
challenged when stratified according to a
validated scoring system
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Risk Stratification

 What clinical features and laboratory markers

can be used to classify pediatric patients with
FN as being low or high risk for poor
outcomes?

 Adopt a validated risk stratification strategy

and incorporate it into routine clinical
management (1C)
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Risk Stratification
Common elements informative for risk
stratification included:
 Patient-specific factors: age, malignancy type, and
disease status

 Treatment-specific factors: type and timing of

chemotherapy

 Episode-specific factors: height of fever, hypotension,

mucositis, blood counts, and CRP
 MASCC Scoring System to Identify Patients With Cancer and
Febrile Neutropenia at Low Risk of Medical Complications*

Characteristics Weight

Burden of febrile neutropenia with no or mild symptoms† 5

No hypotension (systolic blood pressure> 90 mmHg) 5
No chronic obstructive pulmonary disease‡ 4
Solid tumor or hematologic malignancy with no previous fungal infection§ 4
No dehydration requiring parenteral fluids 3
Burden of febrile neutropenia with moderate symptoms† 3
Outpatient status 3
Age <60 years 2
Abbreviation: MASCC, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer.
* Maximum score is 26; scores ≥ 21 Indicate a low risk for medical complications. Data adapted.12.217
†Burden of febrile neutropenia refers to the general clinical status of the patient as influenced by the febrile neutropenia
episode. It should be evaluated on the following scale: no or mild symptoms (score of 5), moderate symptoms (score of 3),
and severe symptoms or moribund (score of 0). Scores of 3 and 5 are not cumulative.
‡Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease means active chronic bronchitis, emphysema, decrease in forced expiratory
volumes, or need for oxygen therapy and/or steroids and/or bronchodilators requiring treatment at the presentation of the
febrile neutropenic episode.
§Previous fungal infection means demonstrated fungal infection or empirically treated suspected fungal infection
 Validated Pediatric Risk Stratification for Low Risk Patients
Strategy Factor Rackoff et al Alexander et al Rondinelli et al
(1996) (2002) (2006)

Patient- and disease-related AML, Burkitt's lymphoma 2 points for central venous
factors induction ALL, progressive catheter; 1 point for age ≤
None
disease, relapsed with marrow 5 years
involvement

Episode-specific factors Absolute monocyte count Hypotension, tachypnea/hypoxia 4.5 points for clinical site of
< 94%, new CXR changes, infection; 2.5 points for no
altered mental status, severe URTI; 1 point each for fever
mucositis, vomiting or > 38.5°C, hemoglobin ≤ 70
abdominal pain, focal infection, g/L
other clinical reason for
inpatient treatment

Rule information Absolute monocyte count ≥ Absence of any risk factor, low Total score <6, low risk of
100/uL, low risk of risk of serious medical serious infectious
bacteremia; HSCT, high risk complication, HSCT, high risk complication; HSCT, high
risk

United States; Madsen et al United Kingdom; Dommett et al Brazil; Rondinelli et al

Demonstrated to be valid* (2002) (2009) (2006)
Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CRP, C-reactive protein; CXR, chest radiograph; FN, fever and
neutropenia; HSCT, hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation; URTI, upper respiratory tract infection.
* Valid refers to clinically adequate discrimination of a group at low risk of complications
 Validate Pediatric Risk Stratification for Low Risk Patients
Strategy Factor Santolaya et al Ammann et al Ammann et al
(2001) (2003) (2010)

Patient- and disease-related Relapsed leukemia, Bone marrow involvement, 4 points for chemotherapy
factors chemotherapy within 7 central venous catheter, pre-B- more intensive than ALL
days of episode cell leukemia maintenance

Episode-specific factors CRP ≥ 90 mg/L, hypotension Absence of clinical signs of viral 5 points for hemoglobin ≥
platelets ≤ 50g/L infection, CRP > 50 mg/L, 90 g/L; 3 points each for
WBC ≤ 500/uL, hemoglobin > WBC < 300/uL, platelets
100 g/L < 50 g/L

Rule information Zero risk factors, only low Three or fewer risk, factors, low Total score < 9, low risk of
platelets, or only < 7 days risk of significant infection; adverse FN outcome;
from chemotherapy, low HSCT, high risk HSCT, high risk
risk of invasive bacterial
infection

South America, Santolaya et Europe, Amman n et al (2010); Europe; Miedema et al

Demonstrated to be valid* al (2002) Macher et al (2010) (2011)

Abbreviations: AML, acute myeloid leukemia; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CRP, C-reactive protein; CXR, chest radiograph; FN, fever and
neutropenia; HSCT, hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation; URTI, upper respiratory tract infection.
* Valid refers to clinically adequate discrimination of a group at low risk of complications.
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Risk Stratification
 Consistent with largely adult-focused IDSA guideline
 Pediatric studies: depth of leukopenia or thrombocytopenia
examined rather than anticipation of prolonged neutropenia in
predicting which patients are not at higher complication risk
 No single rule is clearly effective or reliable than others, nor
does it allow recommending different rules for predicting
specific outcomes

 Geographic and temporal validation are important (local;

practices, systems, approaches may alter how rules perform)
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Evaluation
What clinical, laboratory and imaging studies are useful to
assess etiology and guide future treatment?
Blood Culture:
 Utility of peripheral blood cultures in addition to CVC cultures
is controversial
 Proportion of bacteremia detected by peripheral blood
cultures alone (i.e., CVC cultures were negative) was 13%
(95% CI, 8%-18%)
Scheinemann K et al (2010) Utility of peripheral blood cultures in bacteremic
pediatric cancer patients with a central line. Support Care Cancer 18: 913-919
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Evaluation
Blood Culture:
 Multiple variables influence blood culture yield: volume,
choice of media type, number of bottles inoculated, frequency
of cultures
 Although an adequate volume of blood inoculated is
important and often not consistently collected, minimum
volumes have not been established in pediatric patients
Connel TG et al (2007) How reliable is a negative blood culture result? Volume
of blood submitted for culture in routine practice in a children’s hospital.
Pediatrics 119: 891-896
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Evaluation
Urinalysis and Urine Culture:
 UTIs are common in pediatric FN
Santolaya ME et al (2002) Prospective evaluation of a model of prediction of
invasive bacterial infection risk among children with cancer, fever and
neutropenia. Lin Infect Dis 35: 678-683

 Restricting urine culture to those with symptoms or abnormal

urinalysis is probably not justified: pyuria in only 4% with UTI
episode and N+ vs 68% in N- (p<.001)
Klaassen IL et al (2011) Pyuria is absent during urinary tract infections in
neutropenic patients. Pediatr Blood cancer 56: 868-870
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Evaluation
Urinalysis and Urine Culture:
 Where a clean-catch or mid-stream urine sample can be
collected, obtain sample before starting antibiotics
 Urine collection should not delay treatment

Lehrnbecher T et al (2012) Guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in

children with cancer and/or undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 30(35): 4427-4438
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Evaluation
Chest Xrays:
 Value of routine CXR: frequency of pneumonia in an
asymptomatic child was 5% or less
Phillips R et al (2011) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the value of clinical
features to exclude radiographic pneumonia in FN episodes in children and young
people. J Paediatric Child Health

 Asymptomatic children who do not receive a CXR had no

significant adverse clinical consequences
Renoult E et al (2004) Is routine chest radiography necessary for the initial evaluation of
FN in children with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 43: 224-228
 Routine CXRs are not recommended in asymptomatic children
Lehrnbecher T et al (2012) Guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in
children with cancer and/or undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 30(35): 4427-4438
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Evaluation
 Obtain blood cultures at onset of FN from all
lumens of central venous catheters (1C)
 Consider peripheral blood cultures concurrent
with obtaining central venous catheter cultures
(2C)
 Consider urinalysis and urine culture in patients
where clean-catch, midstream specimen is
readily available (2C)
 Obtain chest radiography only in symptomatic
patients (1B)
Initial Management of Febrile Neutropenia: Treatment

High-Risk Pediatric FN:

 No particular regimen superior to another
 Non-inferiority of monotherapy regimens and higher toxicity
with combination regimens
Furno P et al (2002) Monotherapy or aminoglycoside-containing combinations for
empirical antibiotic treatment of FN patients: A meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2:
231-242
Paul M et al (2003) B-lactam monotherapy vs B-lactam-aminoglycoside combination
therapy for FN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 326: 1111

 Aminoglycoside-containing combination treatment did not

improve clinical outcomes in comparison with
antipseudomonal penicillin monotherapy
Manji A et al (2011) A systematic review and meta-analysis of antipseudomonal
penicillins and carbapenems in pediatric FN. Support Care Cancer (eprint)
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
High-Risk Pediatric FN:
 Antipseudomonal penicillins (e.g., piperacillin-tazobactam,
ticarcillin-clavulanic acid)
 Antipseudomonal cephalosporins (e.g., cefepime)
 Carbapenems
 No difference in treatment failure, mortality, or adverse
effects
Manji A et al (2011) A systematic review and meta-analysis of antipseudomonal
penicillins and carbapenems in pediatric FN. Support Care Cancer (eprint)
Manji A et al (2012) A meta-analysis of antipseudomonal penicillins and cephalosporins in
pediatric patients with FN. Pediatr Infect Dis J 31: 353-358
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
What empiric antibiotics are appropriate for children with high-
risk FN?
 Use monotherapy with an antipseudomonal B-lactam or a
carbapenem as an empiric therapy in pediatric high-risk FN
(1A)
 Reserve addition of second G- agent or glycopeptide for
patients who are clinically unstable, when resistant infection is
suspected, or for centers with high rate of resistant
pathogens (1B)
Lehrnbecher T et al (2012) Guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in
children with cancer and/or undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 30(35): 4427-4438
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
Low-Risk Pediatric FN:
 Outpatient management attractive given increased quality of
life for children
Speyer E et al (2009) Agreement between children with cancer and their parents in
reporting the child’s health-related QOL during stay at the hospital and at home. Child
Care Health Dev 35: 489-495

 Large reduction in costs associated with ambulatory approach

Teuffel O et al (2011) Cost-effectiveness of outpatient management for FN in children
with cancer. Pediatrics 127: e279-e286
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
Low-Risk Pediatric FN:
 Outpatient management was not associated with significantly
higher treatment failure; no difference in mortality
Teuffel O et al (2011) Outpatient management of cancer patients with FN: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 22: 2358-2365

 No increase in treatment failure (including modification) with

outpatient relative to inpatient management (15% vs 27%;
p=.04); no infection-related deaths among 953 outpatients
Manji A et al (2012) Outpatient and oral antibiotic management of low-risk FN are
effective in children: A systematic review of prospective trials. Support Care Cancer
20: 1135-1145
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
In children with low-risk FN, is initial or step-down oral antibiotic
management as effective and safe as management with
parenteral antibiotics?
 Issues: drug availability as oral liquid, palatability, cooperation
of young children, mucositis, impaired GIT absorption
 No difference in treatment failure (including modifications),
overall mortality, or antibiotic adverse effects
 Stratified analysis (pediatric sub-set): oral outpatient
management associated with higher rate of readmission vs
parenteral outpatient management
Teuffel O et al (2011) Outpatient management of cancer patients with FN: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Ann Oncol 22: 2358-2365
Psychosocial and Logistics Criteria
for OPD Management (ASCO)
 Residence ≤ 1hr or ≤ 30 miles (48 km) from the clinic or
hospital
 Patient’s primary care physician or oncologist agrees to OPD
management
 Able to comply with logistics requirement, including frequent
clinic visits
 Family member or caregiver at home 24hrs a day
 Access to a telephone and transportation 24hrs a day
 No history of non-compliance with treatment protocols
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
Low-Risk Pediatric FN:
Oral antibiotics used:
 Fluoroquinolone monotherapy (7 studies; n=581)
 Fluoroquinolone and amoxicillin-clavulanate (3 studies; n=159)
 Cefixime (1 study; n=45)
 No difference in treatment failure (including modification) and
no infection-related deaths among 676 children administered
oral antibiotics
Manji A et al (2012) Outpatient and oral antibiotic management of low-risk FN are effective
in children: A systematic review of prospective trials. Support Care Cancer 20: 1135-
1145
 Initial Management of Febrile
Neutropenia: Treatment
In children with low-risk FN, is initial or step-down outpatient
management as effective and safe as inpatient management?
 Low-risk FN: Consider initial or step-down outpatient
management if infrastructure is in place to ensure careful
monitoring and follow-up (2B)
 Consider oral antibiotics if child is stable to tolerate this route
of administration reliably (2B)
Lehrnbecher T et al (2012) Guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in
children with cancer and/or undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 30(35): 4427-4438
Additional Requirements for OPD
Management (ASCO)

 Frequent evaluation for at least 3 days in clinic or at

home
 Daily or frequent telephone contact to verify resolution
of fever
 Monitoring of ANC and platelet counts for myeloid
reconstitution
 Frequent visits to clinic
For Hospital Admission (ASCO)

 PNF syndrome; fever recurrence

 New signs or symptoms of infection

 PO route no longer possible or tolerable

 Change or addition of antibiotic is necessary

 Culture results revealed organism not

susceptible to initial regimen
Ongoing Management of FN: ≥24-72 Hrs
After Initiation treatment
Modification of Treatment
• In patients who are responding to initial empiric
antibiotic therapy, discontinue double coverage for
Gram-negative infection or empiric glycopeptide (if
initiated) after 24 to 72 hours if there is no specific
microbiologic indication to continue combination
therapy (1B)
• Do not modify initial empiric antibacterial regimen
based solely on persistent fever in children who are
clinically stable (1C)
• In children with persistent fever who become clinically
unstable, escalate initial empiric antibacterial regimen
to include coverage for resistant Gram-negative,
Grampositive, and anaerobic bacteria (1C)
Ongoing Management of FN: ≥24-72 Hrs
After Initiation treatment

Cessation of Treatment
• All patients: Discontinue empiric antibiotics in
patients who have negative blood cultures at 48
hours, who have been afebrile for at least 24 hours,
and who have evidence of marrow recovery (1C)

• Low-risk FN: Consider discontinuation of empiric

antibiotics at 72 hours in low-risk patients who have
negative blood cultures and who have been afebrile
for at least 24 hours, irrespective of marrow
recovery status, as long as careful follow-up is
ensured (2B)
 Empiric Antifungal Treatment: ≥ 96
Hrs After Initiation of treatment

Risk Stratification:
Patients at high risk of IFD: AML or relapsed acute
leukemia, receiving highly myelosuppressive
chemotherapy for other malignancies, and those
undergoing allogeneic HSCT with persistent fever
despite prolonged (≥ 96 hours) broad-spectrum
antibiotic therapy and expected prolonged
neutropenia (> 10 days); all others should be
categorized as IFD low risk (1B)
 IFD Evaluation
 All patients: Consider galactomannan in bronchoalveolar lavage and
cerebrospinal fluid to support diagnosis of pulmonary or CNS
aspergillosis (2C)

 In children, do not use ß-D-glucan testing for clinical decisions until

further pediatric evidence has accumulated (1C)

 IFD high risk: Consider prospective monitoring of serum

galactomannan twice per week in IFD high-risk hospitalized children
for early diagnosis of invasive aspergillosis (2B)

 In IFD high-risk children with persistent FN beyond 96 hours, perform

evaluation for IFD; evaluation should include CT of lungs and targeted
imaging of other clinically suspected areas of infection (1B); consider
CT imaging of sinuses in children ≥ 2 years of age (2C)

 IFD low risk: In IFD low-risk patients, do not implement routine

galactomannan screening (1C)
 Empiric Antifungal Treatment

 All patients: Use either caspofungin or liposomal

amphotericin B for empiric antifungal therapy (1A)
 IFD high risk: In neutropenic IFD high-risk children,
initiate empiric antifungal treatment for persistent or
recurrent fever of unclear etiology that is unresponsive
to prolonged (≥ 96 hours) broad-spectrum
antibacterial agents (1C)
 IFD low risk: In neutropenic IFD low-risk children,
consider empiric antifungal therapy in setting of
persistent FN (2C)
Neutropenic Patients But Not Yet
Febrile (ASCO)
 Consider antibacterial prophylaxis only if profound neutropenia
is expected (<100/uL) likely to last for ≥ 7 days
- systemically absorbed fluoroquinolone (less effective when
>20% G- resistance)
 Antifungal prophylaxis:
- Triazole PO; Echinocandin IV in outpatient setting
- For environment with substantial risk for IFI: >10% ICI,
>6% for IA
Neutropenic Patients But Not Yet
Febrile (ASCO)
 Trimethoprim-sulfa prophylaxis only if >3.5% pneumonia risk
for P. jirovecii (e.g., ≥ 20mg prednisone equivalent daily ≥ 1
month)
 Lamivudine prophylaxis if substantial risk for HBV infection
reactivation
 Nucleoside analog for HSV or VZV seropositive patients in
hematologic patients
 Seasonal influenza immunization (trivalent inactive vaccine) for
all patients
 Other Preventive Precautions

 Hand hygiene; respiratory hygiene/cough etiquette

 Avoid areas of possible high concentration of airborne fungal
spores (e.g., construction and demolition sites)
 Not necessary:
- HEPA filters ± laminar air flow
- Respiratory or surgical masks
- Footwear exchange at entry and exit
- Neutropenic diets
- Gloving and gowning (use only in certain situations)
 Key Distinctions of FN in
Children With Cancer
 Some recommendations similar to adult guidelines such as
choice of empiric antibacterials and criteria for their
modifications
 Some similar recommendations have benefitted from pediatric-
specific focus such as consideration of outpatient management
and oral antibiotic therapy
 Risk stratification schemas are pediatric specific
 Diagnostic tools such as BG testing have pediatric-specific
limitations
 Research Gaps in Pediatric Febrile
Neutropenia

• Validated high-risk stratification schema for pediatric fever and

neutropenia
• Incremental value of peripheral-blood culture in addition to CVC
cultures of an adequate volume
• Optimal type and frequency of re-evaluation (e.g., daily or every
second day telephone contact or clinic visit) for outpatients with
low-risk FN
• Optimal treatment regimen for microbiologically documented sterile
site infections during FN
• Optimal frequency of blood culture sampling in persistently febrile
pediatric patients with neutropenia who are either clinically stable
or unstable
 Research Gaps in Pediatric Febrile
Neutropenia

• Optimal duration of antibiotic therapy for patients with high-risk

FN without bone marrow recovery for prolonged periods
• Whether routine galactomannan screening in IFD high-risk
children is cost–effective and results in better clinical outcomes
compared to a strategy without screening
• Clinical utility and optimal cut-off of β-D-glucan testing in IFD
high-risk children
• Clinical utility of routine sinus imaging in children being evaluated
for IFD
• Safety and efficacy of a pre-emptive antifungal approach in IFD
low-risk and IFD high-risk children
• Optimal investigation and treatment for viral infections in children
with FN
THANK YOU