ArticleAmerican journal of clinical oncology2019
Prospective Evaluation of Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index Score for Gynecologic Oncology Patients With Febrile Neutropenia.
Article in American journal of clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Use of MASCC score in the inpatient management of febrile neutropenia: a single-center retrospective study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Multinational Association of Supportive Care of Cancer (MASCC) risk-index score has been validated as a stratification tool for febrile neutropenia (FN) risk in a heterogeneous group of cancer patients; recently, it has been deemed a suitable tool in gynecologic oncology patients in a retrospective study. This is a prospective multi-institutional study wherein we sought to validate MASCC score for stratifying FN morbidity in gynecologic oncology patients.
methodsIRB approval was obtained at 4 institutions for prospective data collection of gynecologic cancer patients admitted with FN from 3/1/2013 to 9/1/2014. Participating institutions have a policy of inpatient management of FN patients receiving chemotherapy. Deidentified data was compiled and processed at the leading institution.
resultsIn total, 31 patients met inclusion criteria. Most had advanced stage disease (67%). 100% of patients were receiving chemotherapy (57% for primary, 43% for recurrent disease). 55% had a positive culture. Median MASCC score was 21 (range, 10 to 26); 58% of patients were considered low risk. High risk patients more often had one (11% vs. 38%, P=0.09) or multiple (6% vs. 23%, P=0.28) severe complications, ICU admission (0% vs. 15%, P=0.17), and delay in next chemotherapy cycle (33% vs. 54%, P=0.25). No patients died from FN during the study period.
conclusionsThis pilot data suggests that MASCC score may be a promising tool for determining suitability of outpatient management of FN in gynecologic oncology patients. Larger studies are warranted to achieve statistically significant results, which may enable us to effectively utilize this risk stratification tool for cost containment and avoidance of nosocomial infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.