• Ritin Mohindra, Roshan Mathew, Sakshi Yadav, and Praveen Aggarwal.
• Department of Internal Medicine, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India; Department of Emergency Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2020 Nov 1; 38 (11): 2259-2263.

ObjectiveFebrile neutropenia though a dreaded complication of chemotherapy, not all patients need inpatient treatment. Risk score indices like MASCC and CISNE have been developed to identify low risk patients eligible for outpatient management. We undertook this study to compare the performances of MASCC and CISNE.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study conducted in a tertiary care centre from August 2017 to April 2019 where patients with chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia were included. Basic demographic data and primary site of cancer were collected with characteristics required to calculate both MASCC and CISNE scores. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality. Apart from the 3 group risk stratification of CISNE, apriori it was decided that two-tier CISNE score will be calculated with 0 or 1 score as low risk and ≥2 as high risk. Descriptive statistics are reported and predictive performance of each score was analysed.ResultsTotal of 129 patients were recruited. The performance of three-tier CISNE score was more specific (90.6%, 95% CI 76.9-96.9) but sensitivity (25.1%, 95% CI 17.0-36.3) was low compared to that of MASCC score (sensitivity 58.1%, 95% CI 47.0-68.5; specificity 65.1, 95% CI 49.0-78.5%). However, analysis with two-tier CISNE score demonstrated a better sensitivity (56.9%, 95%CI 45.8-67.4). Kappa for agreement between the two scores was 0.520 (95% CI 0.373-0.667, p < 0.001).ConclusionCISNE and MASCC have fair discriminatory power in identifying low risk febrile neutropenia cases. Two group stratification on CISNE scoring will help in better decision making in emergency department.Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

23 keywords...

hide…