Management of febrile neutropenia in the United Kingdom: time for a national trial?

Recent advances in febrile neutropenia (FN) have highlighted the value of risk stratification and the evolving role of oral antibiotics with early hospital discharge in low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to survey whether these advances have been translated into routine clinical practice in the UK. Questionnaires were sent to cancer clinicians across the UK to determine clinicians' routine management of FN, including use of risk stratification, antibiotic regimen and criteria for hospital discharge. In all, 128 clinicians responded, representing 50 cancer departments (83%). Only 38% of respondents stratify patients according to risk and with substantial variation in the criteria defining ‘low-risk'. Furthermore, only 22% of clinicians use oral antibiotics as first-line treatment in any patients with FN, but this was significantly greater among clinicians who do compared to those who do not stratify patients by risk, 51 vs 4% (P<0.0001). These findings suggest a slow and/or cautious introduction of newer strategies for the management of low-risk FN in the UK. However, 84% of respondents confirmed their willingness to participate in a trial of oral antibiotics combined with early discharge in low-risk FN

Imbalances in serum angiopoietin concentrations are early predictors of septic shock development in patients with post chemotherapy febrile neutropenia

Background: Febrile neutropenia carries a high risk of sepsis complications, and the identification of biomarkers capable to identify high risk patients is a great challenge. Angiopoietins (Ang -) are cytokines involved in the control microvascular permeability. It is accepted that Ang-1 expression maintains endothelial barrier integrity, and that Ang-2 acts as an antagonizing cytokine with barrier-disrupting functions in inflammatory situations. Ang-2 levels have been recently correlated with sepsis mortality in intensive care units. Methods: We prospectively evaluated concentrations of Ang-1 and Ang-2 at different time-points during febrile neutropenia, and explored the diagnostic accuracy of these mediators as potential predictors of poor outcome in this clinical setting before the development of sepsis complications. Results: Patients that evolved with septic shock (n = 10) presented higher levels of Ang-2 measured 48 hours after fever onset, and of the Ang-2/Ang-1 ratio at the time of fever onset compared to patients with non-complicated sepsis (n = 31). These levels correlated with sepsis severity scores. Conclusions: Our data suggest that imbalances in the concentrations of Ang-1 and Ang-2 are independent and early markers of the risk of developing septic shock and of sepsis mortality in febrile neutropenia, and larger studies are warranted to validate their clinical usefulness. Therapeutic strategies that manipulate this Ang-2/Ang-1 imbalance can potentially offer new and promising treatments for sepsis in febrile neutropenia

The case for the introduction of new chemotherapy agents in the treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer in the wake of the findings of The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE)

After years of nihilism towards the use of chemotherapy for non small cell lung cancer in the UK it would appear that we have now reached the point where the use of chemotherapy to relieve symptoms, maintain quality of life, and prolong life, are now accepted for informed patients with good performance status willing to accept short-term toxicities. The use of the new agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine and paclitaxel in combination with cisplatin or carboplatin are all active regimens which offer small but real advantages over standard UK triple therapies (MVP, MIC) in terms of resource use, toxicity profiles and response rates. Overall survival could be increased by as much as 10% at one year on indirect comparisons. The use of docetaxel as second line therapy now offers lung cancer patients a second bite of the cherry, and should overall also prolong survival. It is only in embracing these small gains that we can currently make progress in the treatment of NSCLC

Predicting infectious complications in neutropenic children and young people with cancer (IPD protocol)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A common and potentially life-threatening complication of the treatment of childhood cancer is infection, which frequently presents as fever with neutropenia. The standard management of such episodes is the extensive use of intravenous antibiotics, and though it produces excellent survival rates of over 95%, it greatly inconveniences the three-fourths of patients who do not require such aggressive treatment. There have been a number of studies which have aimed to develop risk prediction models to stratify treatment. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis in therapeutic studies has been developed to improve the precision and reliability of answers to questions of treatment effect and recently have been suggested to be used to answer questions regarding prognosis and diagnosis to gain greater power from the frequently small individual studies.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>In the IPD protocol, we will collect and synthesise IPD from multiple studies and examine the outcomes of episodes of febrile neutropenia as a consequence of their treatment for malignant disease. We will develop and evaluate a risk stratification model using hierarchical regression models to stratify patients by their risk of experiencing adverse outcomes during an episode. We will also explore specific practical and methodological issues regarding adaptation of established techniques of IPD meta-analysis of interventions for use in synthesising evidence derived from IPD from multiple studies for use in predictive modelling contexts.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Our aim in using this model is to define a group of individuals at low risk for febrile neutropenia who might be treated with reduced intensity or duration of antibiotic therapy and so reduce the inconvenience and cost of these episodes, as well as to define a group of patients at very high risk of complications who could be subject to more intensive therapies. The project will also help develop methods of IPD predictive modelling for use in future studies of risk prediction.</p

Platinum drugs in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer

The use of chemotherapy is considered standard therapy in patients with locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer that cannot be treated with radiotherapy and in those with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and good performance status. This approach is also accepted in patients with earlier stage disease, when combined with radiotherapy in those with non-resectable locally advanced disease, or in the preoperative setting. Randomised clinical studies and meta-analyses of the literature have confirmed the beneficial survival effect of platinum-based chemotherapy. Cisplatin and carboplatin have been successfully used with other drugs in a wide variety of well-established two-drug combinations while three-drug combinations are still under investigation. Cisplatin and carboplatin use is limited by toxicity and inherent resistance. These considerations have prompted research into new platinum agents, such as the trinuclear platinum agent BBR3464, the platinum complex ZD0473 and oxaliplatin. These compounds could be developed in combination with agents such as paclitaxel, gemcitabine or vinorelbine in patients with advanced and/or refractory solid tumours

Why Are Clinicians Not Embracing the Results from Pivotal Clinical Trials in Severe Sepsis? A Bayesian Analysis

BACKGROUND: Five pivotal clinical trials (Intensive Insulin Therapy; Recombinant Human Activated Protein C [rhAPC]; Low-Tidal Volume; Low-Dose Steroid; Early Goal-Directed Therapy [EGDT]) demonstrated mortality reduction in patients with severe sepsis and expert guidelines have recommended them to clinical practice. Yet, the adoption of these therapies remains low among clinicians. OBJECTIVES: We selected these five trials and asked: Question 1--What is the current probability that the new therapy is not better than the standard of care in my patient with severe sepsis? Question 2--What is the current probability of reducing the relative risk of death (RRR) of my patient with severe sepsis by meaningful clinical thresholds (RRR >15%; >20%; >25%)? METHODS: Bayesian methodologies were applied to this study. Odds ratio (OR) was considered for Question 1, and RRR was used for Question 2. We constructed prior distributions (enthusiastic; mild, moderate, and severe skeptic) based on various effective sample sizes of other relevant clinical trials (unfavorable evidence). Posterior distributions were calculated by combining the prior distributions and the data from pivotal trials (favorable evidence). MAIN FINDINGS: Answer 1--The analysis based on mild skeptic prior shows beneficial results with the Intensive Insulin, rhAPC, and Low-Tidal Volume trials, but not with the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. All trials' results become unacceptable by the analyses using moderate or severe skeptic priors. Answer 2--If we aim for a RRR>15%, the mild skeptic analysis shows that the current probability of reducing death by this clinical threshold is 88% for the Intensive Insulin, 62-65% for the Low-Tidal Volume, rhAPC, EGDT trials, and 17% for the Low-Dose Steroid trial. The moderate and severe skeptic analyses show no clinically meaningful reduction in the risk of death for all trials. If we aim for a RRR >20% or >25%, all probabilities of benefits become lower independent of the degree of skepticism. CONCLUSIONS: Our clinical threshold analysis offers a new bedside tool to be directly applied to the care of patients with severe sepsis. Our results demonstrate that the strength of evidence (statistical and clinical) is weak for all trials, particularly for the Low-Dose Steroid and EGDT trials. It is essential to replicate the results of each of these five clinical trials in confirmatory studies if we want to provide patient care based on scientifically sound evidence