Guideline for the Prevention of Oral and Oropharyngeal Mucositis in Children Receiving Treatment for Cancer or Undergoing Haematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation

PURPOSE: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention of oral mucositis in children (0-18 years) receiving treatment for cancer or undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). METHODS: The Mucositis Prevention Guideline Development Group was interdisciplinary and included internationally recognised experts in paediatric mucositis. For the evidence review, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in either children or adults evaluating the following interventions selected according to prespecified criteria: cryotherapy, low level light therapy (LLLT) and keratinocyte growth factor (KGF). We also examined RCTs of any intervention conducted in children. For all systematic reviews, we synthesised the occurrence of severe oral mucositis. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to describe quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: We suggest cryotherapy or LLLT may be offered to cooperative children receiving chemotherapy or HSCT conditioning with regimens associated with a high rate of mucositis. We also suggest KGF may be offered to children receiving HSCT conditioning with regimens associated with a high rate of severe mucositis. However, KGF use merits caution as there is a lack of efficacy and toxicity data in children, and a lack of long-term follow-up data in paediatric cancers. No other interventions were recommended for oral mucositis prevention in children. CONCLUSIONS: All three specific interventions evaluated in this clinical practice guideline were associated with a weak recommendation for use. There may be important organisational and cost barriers to the adoption of LLLT and KGF. Considerations for implementation and key research gaps are highlighted

Predicting Infectious ComplicatioNs in Children with Cancer : an external validation study

Background:The aim of this study was to validate the 'Predicting Infectious ComplicatioNs in Children with Cancer' (PICNICC) clinical decision rule (CDR) that predicts microbiologically documented infection (MDI) in children with cancer and fever and neutropenia (FN). We also investigated costs associated with current FN management strategies in Australia.Methods:Demographic, episode, outcome and cost data were retrospectively collected on 650 episodes of FN. We assessed the discrimination, calibration, sensitivity and specificity of the PICNICC CDR in our cohort compared with the derivation data set.Results:Using the original variable coefficients, the CDR performed poorly. After recalibration the PICNICC CDR had an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve of 0.638 (95% CI 0.590-0.685) and calibration slope of 0.24. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the PICNICC CDR at presentation was 78.4%, 39.8%, 28.6% and 85.7%, respectively. For bacteraemia, the sensitivity improved to 85.2% and AUC-ROC to 0.71. Application at day 2, taking into consideration the proportion of MDI known (43%), further improved the sensitivity to 87.7%. Length of stay is the main contributor to cost of FN treatment, with an average cost per day of AUD 2183 in the low-risk group.Conclusions:For prediction of any MDI, the PICNICC rule did not perform as well at presentation in our cohort as compared with the derivation study. However, for bacteraemia, the predictive ability was similar to that of the derivation study, highlighting the importance of recalibration using local data. Performance also improved after an overnight period of observation. Implementation of a low-risk pathway, using the PICNICC CDR after a short period of inpatient observation, is likely to be safe and has the potential to reduce health-care expenditure

Systematic review of reduced therapy regimens for children with low risk febrile neutropenia

PURPOSE: Reduced intensity therapy for children with low-risk febrile neutropenia may provide benefits to both patients and the health service. We have explored the safety of these regimens and the effect of timing of discharge. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases, conference abstracts and reference lists were searched. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) and prospective observational cohorts examining the location of therapy and/or the route of administration of antibiotics in people younger than 18 years who developed low-risk febrile neutropenia following treatment for cancer were included. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was conducted. I (2) assessed statistical heterogeneity not due to chance. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42014005817). RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies involving 3205 episodes of febrile neutropenia were included; 13 RCTs and 24 prospective observational cohorts. Four safety events (two deaths, two intensive care admissions) occurred. In the RCTs, the odds ratio for treatment failure (persistence, worsening or recurrence of fever/infecting organisms, antibiotic modification, new infections, re-admission, admission to critical care or death) with outpatient treatment was 0.98 (95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.44-2.19, I (2) = 0 %) and with oral treatment was 1.05 (95%CI 0.74-1.48, I (2) = 0 %). The estimated risk of failure using outpatient therapy from all prospective data pooled was 11.2 % (95%CI 9.7-12.8 %, I (2) = 77.2 %) and using oral antibiotics was 10.5 % (95%CI 8.9-12.3 %, I (2) = 78.3 %). The risk of failure was higher when reduced intensity therapies were used immediately after assessment, with lower rates when these were introduced after 48 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Reduced intensity therapy for specified groups is safe with low rates of treatment failure. Services should consider how these can be acceptably implemented