Prognostic factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Increasing numbers of studies identify new prognostic factors for categorising chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia adult cancer patients into high- or low-risk groups for adverse outcomes. These groupings are used to tailor therapy according to level of risk. However many emerging factors with prognostic significance remain controversial, being based on single studies only.

Objectives: A systematic review was conducted to determine the strength of association of all identified factors associated with the outcomes of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients.

Inclusion criteria: The participants included were adults of 15 years old and above, with a cancer diagnosis and who underwent cancer treatment.The review focused on clinical factors and their association with the outcomes of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia at presentation of fever.All quantitative studies published in English which investigated clinical factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia were considered.The primary outcome of interest was to identify the clinical factors for risk stratification of adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.

Search strategy: Electronic databases searched from their respective inception date up to December 2011 include MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Science-Direct, Scopus and Mednar.

Methodological quality: The quality of the included studies was subjected to assessment by two independent reviewers. The standardised critical appraisal tool from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) was used to assess the following criteria: representativeness of study population; clearly defined prognostic factors and outcomes; whether potential confounders were addressed and appropriate statistical analysis was undertaken for the study design.

Data collection: Data extraction was performed using a modified version of the standardised extraction tool from the JBI-MAStARI. Prognostic factors and the accompanying odds ratio reported for the significance of these factors that were identified by multivariate regression, were extracted from each included study.

Data synthesis: Studies results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.1. Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were presented in narrative form.

Results: Seven studies (four prospective cohort and three retrospective cohort) investigating 22 factors in total were included. Fixed effects meta-analysis showed: hypotension [OR=1.66, 95%CI, 1.14-2.41, p=0.008] and thrombocytopenia [OR=3.92, 95%CI, 2.19-7.01, p<0.00001)] were associated with high-risk of adverse outcomes for febrile neutropenia. Other factors that were statistically significant from single studies included: age of patients, clinical presentation at fever onset, presence or absence of co-morbidities, infections, duration and severity of neutropenia state. Five prognostic factors failed to demonstrate an association between the variables and the outcomes measured and they include: presence of pneumonia, total febrile days, median days to fever, recovery from neutropenia and presence of moderate clinical symptoms in association with Gram-negative bacteraemia.

Conclusions: Despite the overall limitations identified in the included studies, this review has provided a synthesis of the best available evidence for the prognostic factors used in risk stratification of febrile neutropenia patients. However, the dynamic aspects of prognostic model development, validation and utilisation have not been addressed adequately thus far. Given the findings of this review, it is timely to address these issues and improve the utilisation of prognostic models in the management of febrile neutropenia patients.

Implications for practice: The identified factors are similar to the factors in current prognostic models. However, additional factors that were reported to be statistically significant in this review (thrombocytopenia, presence of central venous catheter, and duration and severity of neutropenia) have not previously been included in prognostic models. This review has found these factors may improve the performance of current models by adding or replacing some of the factors.

Implications for research: The role of risk stratification of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia patients continues to evolve as the practice of risk-based therapy has been demonstrated to be beneficial to patients, clinicians and health care organisations. Further research to identify new factors /markers is needed to develop a new model which is reliable and accurate for these patients, regardless of cancer types. A robust and well-validated prognostic model is the key to enhance patient safety in the risk-based management of cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia.