Neutropenic F ever

a, b
Lindsey White, MD *, Michael Ybarra, MD

KEYWORDS
 Neutropenic fever  Bacterial infection  Risk stratification

KEY POINTS
 Neutropenic fever is an oncologic/hematologic emergency that may be encountered in the
emergency department setting.
 Engaging patients’ hematologist/oncologist in disposition decision making is of critical
importance to managing patients with febrile neutropenia.
 Factors such as chemotherapeutic regimen, history of stem cell transplant, and cancer
type place patients at varying levels of risk for serious infection.
 Neutropenic fever should trigger the initiation of rapid work-up and the administration of
empiric systemic antibiotic therapy.

INTRODUCTION

Fever is a common presenting complaint among adult or pediatric patients in the

emergency department (ED) setting. Although fever in healthy individuals does not
necessarily indicate severe illness, fever in patients with neutropenia may herald
life-threatening infection. Therefore, prompt recognition of patients with neutropenic
fever is imperative. Serious bacterial illness is a significant cause of morbidity and mor-
tality for neutropenic patients.1 Neutropenic fever should trigger the initiation of a rapid
work-up and administration of empiric systemic antibiotic therapy to attenuate or
avoid the progression along the spectrum of sepsis, severe sepsis, septic shock syn-
drome, and death.1
Patients at risk for the development of neutropenic fever include patients using
chemotherapeutic agents or other medications that alter immune function; patients
with infections, such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); or individuals with other
underlying immune deficiency states (congenital or acquired).
Fever may be the only presenting sign of infection. In the absence of fever, other po-
tential signs of infection include vital sign alterations or evidence of new organ
dysfunction. Emergency physicians should be aware of the infection risks, diagnostic

This article originally appeared in Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, Volume 32,
Issue 3, August 2014.
Disclosure: None.
a
Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington Hospital Center, 110 Irving Street North-
west, Suite NA 1177, Washington, DC 20010, USA; b Department of Emergency Medicine, Med-
Star Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Lindsey.N.White@MedStar.Net

Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 31 (2017) 981–993

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2017.08.004 hemonc.theclinics.com
0889-8588/17/ª 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
982 White & Ybarra

methods, and antimicrobial agents required for appropriate management of febrile

neutropenia. The initial clinical evaluation focuses on assessing the risk of serious
complications. This risk assessment determines the approach to therapy, including
the need for inpatient admission and intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Therefore, algorithms
for evaluation, diagnosis, and prophylactic treatment have been developed.

DEFINITIONS

The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) defines fever in neutropenic patients
as a single oral temperature of greater than 38.0 C, or 100.4 F, for greater than
1 hour.2 Although rectal measurement most accurately reflects the core body temper-
ature, oral or axillary temperature measurements are recommended because of the
theoretical risk of bacterial translocation during the procedure of inserting the ther-
mometer probe into the anus.
Although the definition of neutropenia varies from institution to institution, neutrope-
nia is typically defined as an absolute neutrophil count (ANC) of less than 1500 cells
per microliter.2 Severe neutropenia is defined as an ANC less than 500 cells per micro-
liter or an ANC that is expected to decrease to less than 500 cells per microliter over
the next 48 hours.2 Neutropenia can be further categorized as mild, moderate, or se-
vere. Mild neutropenia is defined as an ANC between 1000 and 1500 cells per micro-
liter. Moderate neutropenia is defined by an ANC between 500 and 1000 cells per
microliter, and severe neutropenia is defined as an ANC less than 500 cells per micro-
liter. This classification is depicted in Table 1.
Because the risk of clinically significant infection increases as the neutrophil count
decreases to less than 500 cells per microliter,3 for the purposes of the discussion
that follows, the authors define neutropenia as an ANC less than 500 cells per microliter.
Furthermore, the risk of clinically significant infection is higher in those with a prolonged
duration of neutropenia (more than 7 days).2 There is an inverse relationship between
mortality associated with febrile neutropenia and the absolute neutrophil count.4
Although some laboratories report a calculated ANC, it is important for the emer-
gency physician to know how to calculate the ANC. The ANC can be calculated by
multiplying the total white blood cell (WBC) count by the percentage of polymorpho-
nuclear cells and bands (Table 2).
For example, in a patient with the following complete blood count (CBC), the ANC is
equal to 2000 cells per microliter  (10% neutrophils 1 15% bands) 5 2000  25% 5
500 cells per microliter.
When the ANC count decreases to less than 500 cells per microliter, there is impair-
ment in control of normal microflora of the mouth and gut.5 In addition, acute develop-
ment of neutropenia is associated with a higher risk of infection than chronic
neutropenia that results over months to years. The mortality from uncontrolled

Table 1
Neutropenia classification

Degree of Neutropenia ANC (cells per microliter)

Mild 1000–1500
Moderate 500–999
Severe <500

Data from Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of anti-
microbial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Soci-
ety of America. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(4):e56–93.
 Neutropenic Fever 983

Table 2
Sample ANC calculation

Total Peripheral WBC Count WBC Count Differential (%)

2000 cells per microliter Neutrophils 10
Lymphocytes 50
Monocytes 25
Bands 15

infection varies inversely with the neutrophil count. If the nadir is greater 1000 cells per
microliter, there is little mortality risk; if there are less than 500 cells per microliter, the
risk of death is markedly increased. Neutrophils are the first-line defense against infec-
tion as the initial cellular component of the inflammatory response and a key compo-
nent of innate immunity. Fever occurs in up to one-third of neutropenic episodes in
certain populations.5

CAUSES

There are numerous potential causes that may contribute to the development of neu-
tropenia. The most common cause of neutropenia is medications, specifically chemo-
therapeutic agents. Other causes are congenital, infectious, and rheumatologic.
Individuals can have a genetic predisposition to neutropenia, as in Cohen syndrome.
Neutropenia can also result from increased neutrophil destruction, as in autoimmune
or drug-induced neutropenia.5 The causes of neutropenia with examples are listed in
Boxes 1 and 2.
Neutropenia is caused by medications through direct and indirect mechanisms.
Neutropenia can be caused by the cytotoxic or immunosuppressive mechanisms
related to the particular chemotherapy or antiretroviral agent or antibiotic. These drugs

Box 1
Neutropenia causes

1. Medications
a. Chemotherapeutic agents
b. Psychotropic drugs: clozapine, olanzapine
c. Anticonvulsants: phenytoin, valproic acid
d. H2 blockers: cimetidine, ranitidine
e. Antibiotics: penicillin, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole
f. Diuretics: acetazolamide, hydrochlorothiazide
g. Thionamides: propylthiouracil, methimazole
h. Rheumatologic agents: rituximab, sulfasalazine
i. Miscellaneous: nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, allopurinol
2. Infectious
a. Viral: HIV, influenza, hepatitis B, respiratory syncytial virus, cytomegalovirus
b. Bacterial: tuberculosis, Shigella
3. Immune
a. Autoimmune: chronic benign neutropenia
b. Alloimmune: neonatal alloimmune neutropenia
4. Nutritional
a. B12 or folate deficiency

Data from Harrisons. 352–353.

984 White & Ybarra

Box 2
Hereditary causes of neutropenia

Cohen syndrome
An inherited disorder that affects many parts of the body and is characterized by
developmental delay, intellectual disability, microcephaly, hypotonia, and in some cases
neutropenia
Cyclic neutropenia
A congenital disorder characterized by recurrent episodes of neutropenia
Kostmann syndrome
A rare autosomal recessive form of severe chronic neutropenia usually detected soon after
birth
Barth syndrome
An X-linked genetic disorder that affects multiple body systems and may include severe
neutropenia
Chediak-Higashi syndrome
A congenital syndrome that affects many parts of the body, particularly the immune system

Data from Harrisons. 352–353.

result in either decreased production of rapidly growing progenitor cells or inhibiting

proliferation of myeloid precursors to adversely affect hematopoiesis.6 This effect is
often dose related and depends on continued administration of the drug. Conversely,
certain drugs cause neutropenia indirectly by serving as immune haptens, leading to
immune-mediated destruction of granulocytes, including neutrophils.
Several antirheumatic medications cause both neutropenia and leukopenia; there-
fore, fever in patients with rheumatologic disease on therapy should be similarly eval-
uated. Additionally, certain medical conditions, such as Crohn disease, HIV,
rheumatoid arthritis, and lupus, increase the risk of neutropenia because of increased
neutrophil destruction caused by the disease process itself.
Because patients who are receiving chemotherapy experience frequent episodes of
neutropenia, many studies on neutropenic fever and serious bacterial infection focus
on this population. The high-risk period for the development of neutropenia is 7 to
10 days after the last chemotherapeutic dose and up to 5 days thereafter. The lowest
neutrophil count is typically 5 to 10 days after the last dose, and recovery is typically
5 days later.7
The type of chemotherapeutic agent may affect the risk for development of neutro-
penia, as some chemotherapy regimens are more myelotoxic than others. For
example, chemotherapy regimens for solid tumors often cause neutropenia of shorter
duration as compared with chemotherapy regimens for hematologic malignancies. An
estimated 10% to 50% of solid tumors and more than 80% of hematologic malig-
nancies will develop fever during at least one cycle of chemotherapy with associated
neutropenia.2 It is also important to note that expected ANC varies by race and age.
The infection risk is also increased by the presence of indwelling vascular catheters,
often used for chemotherapy administration; the duration of neutropenia; and other
comorbid conditions.7
Noniatrogenic causes of neutropenia include infectious, congenital, and autoim-
mune. The most common causes of nonchemotherapy-related neutropenia are viral
suppression and sepsis.5 Viruses, such as Epstein-Barr virus, influenza, and cytomeg-
alovirus, can cause neutropenia by viral-mediated bone marrow suppression.
 Neutropenic Fever 985

CLINICAL SCENARIOS

The International Immunocompromised Host Society has identified the following neu-
tropenic fever syndromes8:
1. Microbiologically documented infection
2. Clinically documented infection
3. Unexplained fever
Microbiologically documented infection results when patients have both fever and
neutropenia as well as an identified pathogen, based on microbiologic results, that
corresponds with a clinical focus of infection. This diagnosis is difficult to make in
the ED given that microbiologic results, such as urine, respiratory, or blood cultures,
often require at least 24 hours before preliminary results are available. This situation
may, however, be encountered in the ED if a patient is evaluated by their oncolo-
gist/hematologist as an outpatient and sent to the ED after a culture result is found
to be positive.
Clinically documented infection occurs when patients have fever, neutropenia, and
physical signs or symptoms that indicate a possible infectious source but do not yet
have a confirmed pathogen. This scenario is a more common scenario in the ED where
history and physical examination findings and laboratory and radiologic studies sug-
gest an infectious source and dictate antibiotic selection and disposition before micro-
biologic confirmation.
Unexplained fever is the syndrome whereby patients have both neutropenia and fe-
ver but no identified infection source suggested or identified clinically and no path-
ogen is identified on microbiologic studies. This clinical scenario is the most
common because the incidence of clinically documented infection in febrile neutrope-
nia is only 20% to 30%.2

MORTALITY

There are significant health costs associated with neutropenic fever in addition to the
morbidity and mortality that affect individual patients. One study reports that mortality
approaches 50% if neutropenic fever is not treated within 48 hours.9 Mortality rates
vary with the type of malignancy.2 Hematologic malignancies, such as leukemia, typi-
cally have higher rates of mortality than solid-tumor malignancies.
Similarly, mortality rates vary with the type of infection. Infection by gram-negative
organisms typically has higher mortality rates compared with gram-positive organ-
isms.2 A meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients has demon-
strated a decrease in mortality; however, there remains a significant mortality cost
for neutropenic patients who develop fever.10 In addition to increased mortality, pa-
tients with neutropenic fever are often hospitalized for significant time periods, thus
increasing overall health care costs. In a multicenter trial between 1995 and 2000,
Kuderer and colleagues11 report an average length of stay of adult patients with febrile
neutropenia of 11 days.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS
History and Physical Examination
Fever in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or in patients with immune defi-
ciency states requires prompt attention by medical professionals and an expedited
work-up to evaluate for neutropenia (Fig. 1). Neutropenic fever is a medical emer-
gency and should be treated empirically with antimicrobial therapy. Rectal
986 White & Ybarra

Fig. 1. Workflow for patients with febrile neutropenia.

temperatures should be avoided in neutropenic patients because of the breakdown in

mucosal surfaces from cytotoxic therapy.
The key historical questions to ask include the duration and intensity of chemother-
apeutic or immunosuppressive regimen, history of recent travel, presence of or expo-
sure to animals, whether patients have been taking antimicrobial prophylaxis, and
prior episodes of neutropenia or infection.
The risk of neutropenic fever in all patients receiving chemotherapy for cancer is
generally low.12 In a prospective study of 4000 patients with cancer receiving systemic
chemotherapy, febrile neutropenia was documented in 14% of patients. The highest
incidence followed the first cycle of chemotherapy (8%).13 Certain chemotherapeutic
regimens put patients at higher risk as does repeated cycles of chemotherapy. Cyto-
toxic therapy causes myelosuppression, which increases the risk of neutropenia, and
epithelial damage, which increases the risk of bacterial translocation.14 Regimens that
cause mucosal damage are associated with a higher incidence of febrile events.15
Fever in neutropenic patients should trigger rapid evaluation, work-up, and empiric
treatment. Infection is most likely to involve the integumental surfaces, such as the up-
per and lower respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and skin.5 Consequently, the
physical examination should focus on these areas as well as vascular access points
or sites of prior venipuncture.16
Patients may not present with typical signs and symptoms of infection. In fact, fever
may be the only sign of infection in patients with neutropenia. Patients with lower ANC
may lack the ability to mount an inflammatory response. Physical examination findings
tend to become more muted as the ANC decreases and, therefore, may be less
evident.17 For instance, when examining the skin or soft tissues, typical findings of
 Neutropenic Fever 987

infection, such as erythema, swelling, exudates, fluctuance, ulcerations, and tender-

ness, may be absent entirely (Table 3).5,17 Similarly, pulmonary and abdominal exam-
inations may be muted. Patients with an intra-abdominal catastrophe may not have
peritonitis clinically; likewise, patients with pneumonia may not produce characteristic
increased sputum or infiltrate on a routine chest radiograph.4

Diagnostic Testing
There are several potential causes of neutropenia as seen in Box 1. Emergency phy-
sicians are typically cued in to evaluating patients for neutropenic fever when they
have a history of cancer or are on a chemotherapeutic medication. Patients receiving
chemotherapy that present to the ED with fever should receive a diagnostic work-up to
evaluate for neutropenia. However, neutropenia should be considered and ruled out in
febrile patients with a history of immune deficiency or those who are taking any medi-
cation that may affect the immune system directly or indirectly.
Appropriate laboratory testing includes a CBC with differential and platelet count.
Additionally, the IDSA’s guidelines recommend obtaining a comprehensive metabolic
panel to include electrolytes, creatinine, hepatic function, and bilirubin.2 Blood cul-
tures should be obtained from 2 separate sites, including one drawn from an
indwelling venous catheter, if present. Cultures should be obtained if the physical ex-
amination points to additional sites of infection, such as skin cultures at sites of ab-
scess, urine, or sputum if there is productive cough.
Patients receiving chemotherapy may not show typical signs and symptoms of res-
piratory and urine tract infection; therefore, a low threshold exists for ordering chest
radiograph and urinalysis. The IDSA’s guidelines recommend a computed tomogra-
phy (CT) scan of the chest and sinuses if the fever persists after 72 hours of antibiotic
therapy and there is no obvious source of infection. A CT of the chest is generally not
required if a chest radiograph is negative in the ED, unless there is strong clinical sus-
picion for pneumonia.5
Stool cultures, ova and parasite, and Clostridium difficile toxin should be ordered in
patients with diarrhea. Cultures of any sites of drainage should be obtained. If

Table 3
Patient signs and symptoms

System Patient Symptoms Examination Findings Diagnostic Testing

HEENT Painful swallowing Erythema may be faint Consider throat culture
Respiratory Cough Wheezes, rales, rhonchi less Consider plain chest
common radiograph (chest
radiograph) in all
patients
Abdominal Pain or tenderness Peritoneal signs are often Consider CT if patients have
absent abdominal complaint,
even if examination is
benign
Skin Pain or irritation Erythema, induration, Ultrasound, or in some
fluctuance can be muted cases CT imaging, may be
helpful to identify
abscess formation
Neurologic Headache May lack characteristic Consider lumbar puncture
meningismus

Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.

988 White & Ybarra

meningitis or encephalitis is suspected, a lumbar puncture should be performed to

obtain cerebrospinal fluid. Similarly, joint aspiration should be performed if there is ev-
idence of joint effusion or suspicion of joint infection.
Fungal cultures are generally not necessary during the initial ED evaluation. Fungal
infection should be considered if the fever persists after 4 to 7 days of antibiotics or if
additional diagnostic studies, such as CT of the chest and sinuses, suggest possible
fungal infection.2 Certain patients are at a higher risk for fungal infections. These pa-
tients include patients who have received allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell trans-
plantation and intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia, history of
previous fungal infection, or are receiving total parenteral nutrition. The most common
fungal pathogens are Candida and Aspergillus.18 Similarly, empiric treatment with anti-
viral therapy is not indicated in the ED unless there is evidence of acute viral infection.
Typical viral pathogens include herpes-simplex virus; varicella-zoster virus; cytomeg-
alovirus; Epstein-Barr virus; and community-acquired respiratory viruses, such as res-
piratory syncytial virus and influenza.19

Antibiotic Treatment
The early administration of IV antibiotics has been shown to decrease mortality in pa-
tients with severe sepsis and septic shock.20 Antibiotics should be initiated as soon as
possible, given existing data support improved outcomes with rapid therapy.21 More-
over, antibiotics should not be delayed because of a delay in blood or other culture
acquisition.
Common bacterial pathogens are shown in Table 4. Bloodstream infections are
typically caused by Gram-positive organisms, such as coagulase-negative Staphylo-
coccus, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus, Streptococcus pneumonia, and
Streptococcus pyogenes; however, there are many drug-resistant gram-negative or-
ganism, such as Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, and Pseudomonas infec-
tions.22 Endogenous flora contributes to 80% of identified infections.23
Gram-negative bacilli, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, were predominant until
the 1980s. Since the 1980s, gram-positive organisms have become the most predom-
inant bacterial pathogens. A survey of 49 hospitals from 1995 to 2000 showed that
gram-positive organisms accounted for 62% to 76% of all blood stream infections
compared with only 14% to 22% for gram-negative species.24 This transition from
gram-negative to gram-positive organisms is thought to result from the increased uti-
lization of indwelling catheters with a ready point of entry for skin flora as seen in Fig. 2.

Table 4
Common bacterial pathogens

Gram-positive pathogens Coagulase-negative staphylococcus, Staphylococcus aureus

(including MRSA), Enterococcus, Streptococcus viridans,
Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes
Gram-negative pathogens Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas,
Citrobacter, Acinetobacter, Stenotrophomonas

Abbreviation: MRSA, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Data from Wisplinghoff H, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, et al. Current trends in the epidemiology of
nosocomial bloodstram infections in patients with hematologic malignancies and solid neoplasms
in hospitals in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:1103; and De Pauw, Donnelly. In: Mandell,
Bennett, Dolin, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th edition. Philadelphia:
Elsevier; 2000. p. 3079–90.
 Neutropenic Fever 989

Fig. 2. Causes of fever during episodes of neutropenia. (Data from Mandell GL, Bennett JE,
Dolin R, editors. Principles and practice of infectious diseases. 5th edition. Philadelphia:
Elsevier, 2000;3079–90.)

First-line therapy varies based on local practice but typically includes a broad-
spectrum cephalosporin with antipseudomonal activity, carbapenem, or extended-
spectrum penicillin (Table 5). Cephalosporins are typically well tolerated in patients
with penicillin allergy; but in those patients with severe allergic or anaphylactic reac-
tions, alternative regimens include ciprofloxacin plus clindamycin or aztreonam plus
vancomycin.2
Some physicians recommend antimicrobial prophylaxis for patients with known
neutropenia. Although there is not a proven mortality benefit, patients with neutropenia
for greater than 10 days are typically given a fluoroquinolone.25 Studies demonstrate
that some antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the incidence of gram-negative infections.
A typical antibiotic prophylaxis regimen includes either moxifloxacin or combination
therapy with ciprofloxacin and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid.25 Currently, myeloid growth
factors, empiric antiviral, or antifungal therapy are not considered part of the typical
initial ED therapy.

Table 5
Empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia

First-line therapy Cefepime

Carbapenem (meropenem or
imipenem-cilastatin)
Piperacillin-tazobactam
Severe penicillin allergy or complication (hypotension or Aminoglycoside
pneumonia) Fluoroquinolone
Suspected catheter-related infection, skin and soft-tissue Vancomycin
infection, health care–associated infection, or Linezolid
hemodynamic instability, add extended gram-positive Daptomycin
coverage

Data from 2010 IDSA guidelines. Van der Velden WJ, Blijlevens NM, Feuth T, et al. Febrile mucositis
in haematopoietic sickle cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2009;43(1):55–60.
990 White & Ybarra

Other Considerations
In order to decrease the infectious complications of neutropenia, many hematologists
and oncologists use granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (such as filgrastim) or
closely related granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors (such as sargra-
mostim). They are used both as primary prophylaxis and as secondary prophylaxis
in patients who became neutropenic after a previous dose of chemotherapy. Several
studies have shown colony-stimulating factors decrease episodes of neutropenic fe-
ver, documented infection, and rates of hospitalization.26
Colony-stimulating factors have not been proven effective during episodes of neu-
tropenic fever17; however, the emergency practitioner may encounter a situation
whereby a patient with cancer has received a colony-stimulating factor and presents
to the ED with a febrile illness. The onset of action of colony-stimulating factors is
generally within 24 hours, with a peak ANC by days 3 to 5. Depending on when the
colony-stimulating factor was administered, patients may present with an expected
profound leukocytosis of up to 50,000/mL.17 These patients should be worked up simi-
larly to patients who are found to be neutropenic. Discharge can be considered in pa-
tients who clinically seem well, have no obvious source of infection after ED
evaluation, and are both reliable and have close follow-up. This decision should be
made in consultation with the patients’ hematologist/oncologist.

Risk Stratification
The IDSA’s most recent guidelines on neutropenic fever aid the clinician in risk strat-
ifying patients (Table 6).2
There are several scoring systems developed to aid in risk stratification, including
the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score. The
MASCC score calculates the risk based on several objective findings, such as low
blood pressure, active chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, solid tumor, previous
fungal infection, dehydration requiring IV fluids, clinical setting at onset of fever, and
age, and one subjective component (burden of illness as reported by patients).26
The MASCC score has favorable sensitivity when compared with other scoring sys-
tems (Table 7).27
Additional risk stratification systems exist. The MD Anderson Cancer Center devel-
oped a classification system adopted by the National Cancer Institute and European
Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer, but it is not statistically
validated.28

Disposition
Most patients with febrile neutropenia are admitted to the hospital for IV antibiotics.
Patients should only be discharged if they meet the low-risk criteria, the patients’

Table 6
Risk stratification for patients with neutropenic fever

High-Risk Characteristics Low-Risk Characteristics

Prolonged neutropenia (>7 d) Brief neutropenia anticipated
Profound neutropenia (ANC <100 cells per microliter)
Comorbid conditions No comorbid conditions
MASCC score <21 MASCC score 21

Abbreviation: MASCC, Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer.

 Neutropenic Fever 991

Table 7
MASCC score

Category Points
Burden of illness: no or mild symptoms 5
No hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg) 5
No COPD 4
Solid tumor or no previous invasive fungal infection 4
Outpatient 3
Burden of disease: moderate symptoms 3
No dehydration 3
Aged <60 y 2

Abbreviations: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MASCC, Multinational Association

for Supportive Care in Cancer.
Data from De Souza Viana L, Serufo JC, da Costa Rocha MO, et al. Performance of a modified
MASCC index score for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Support Care Can-
cer 2008;16(7):841–6.

hematologist/oncologist agrees with the proposed disposition, and if rapid interval

follow-up and reevaluation is ensured.20 If patients are deemed to be low risk by their
hematologist/oncologist and safe for discharge, they should receive an initial dose of
IV antibiotics in the ED before discharge with a prescription for oral antibiotics at
home. An observational study by Etling and colleagues29 demonstrates that selected
low-risk patients who are managed as outpatients have similar outcomes when
compared with similar patients managed as inpatients.
Data from the MD Anderson Cancer Center suggests that approximately 50% of pa-
tients with febrile neutropenia were ultimately diagnosed with unexplained fever.28
These patients are without a clinically evident site of infection and have negative cul-
tures. Of the remaining patients, only 25% were found to have a microbiologically
documented infection, and 25% had a clinically evident site of infection.28
Among patients admitted to the hospital for empiric antimicrobial therapy, the spe-
cific level of care will be determined by the patients’ clinical status. Neutropenic pre-
cautions are typically used. Patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplant
should be in a single-patient room with positive pressure and high-efficiency particu-
late air filters when feasible. Hand-washing protocols should be strictly observed.
Standard barrier precautions are recommended.30 The neutropenic diet is typically
well-cooked foods. Lunch meats from a deli counter are avoided because of the
risk of listeria, as are raw or undercooked meats and unpasteurized cheeses. Well-
cleaned raw fruits and vegetables are generally acceptable.31
Dietary counseling is an important follow-up consideration for discharged patients
and is typically coordinated by the patients’ oncologist/hematologist. Additionally, pa-
tients should maintain good oral hygiene and can be instructed on home skin exam-
inations for signs of cellulitis or vascular access site infection. Menstruating women
should not use tampons. Enemas, rectal probes, and suppositories should also be
avoided. Potted plants and flowers should be discouraged, as various pathogenic
molds have been isolated.30

SUMMARY

Neutropenic fever is an oncologic/hematologic emergency that may be encountered

in the ED setting. Thorough evaluation, including a detailed history, comprehensive
992 White & Ybarra

physical examination, and laboratory data, should be initiated promptly. Furthermore,

empiric antibiotics with gram-positive and gram-negative organism coverage should
be initiated swiftly.
Not all patients with neutropenic fever are at the same risk of serious bacterial infec-
tion. Factors such as chemotherapeutic regimen, history of stem cell transplant, and
cancer type place patients at varying levels of risk for serious infection. There are
several risk-stratification tools developed to aid in the disposition decision, although
the MASCC is the most widely studied.
Engaging patients’ hematologist/oncologist in disposition decision making is of crit-
ical importance to managing patients with febrile neutropenia. Most patients with neu-
tropenic fever are admitted to the hospital and started on a broad-spectrum antibiotic
regimen, such as a cephalosporin with antipseudomonal activity, although it is
possible to discharge selected patients on oral antibiotics if they are considered low
risk by clinical criteria and close follow-up is ensured.

REFERENCES

1. Bow EJ. Infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Crit Care Clin 2013;29:
411–41.
2. Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of
antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the In-
fectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis 2011;52(4):e56–93.
3. McCurdy MT, Tsuyoshi M, Perkins J. Oncologic emergencies, part II: neutropenic
fever, tumor lysis syndrome, and hypercalcemia of malignancy, vol. 12. Nocross
(GA): EB Medicine; 2010. p. 3.
4. Bodey GP, Buckley M, Sathe YS, et al. Quantitative relationships between circu-
lating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukemia. Ann Intern Med
1966;64:328–40.
5. Van der Velden WJ, Blijlevens NM, Feuth T, et al. Febrile mucositis in haemato-
poietic sickle cell transplant recipients. Bone Marrow Transplant 2009;43(1):
55–60.
6. Crawford J, Dale DC, Lyman GH. Chemotherapy-induced neutropenia: risks,
consequences, and new directions for its management. Cancer 2004;100(2):
228–37.
7. Bertuch AA, Srother D. Fever in children with chemotherapy induced neutrope-
nia. Waltham (MA): Up to Date; 2007.
8. From the Immunocompromised Host Society. The design, analysis, and reporting
of clinical trials on the empirical antibiotic management of the neutropenic pa-
tient. A consensus report. J Infect Dis 1990;161:397–401.
9. Bodey GP, Jadija L, Etling L. Pseudomonas bacteremia: retrospective analysis of
410 episodes. Arch Intern Med 1985;145:1621–9.
10. Gafter-Gvilli A, Fraser A, Paul M, et al. Meta-analysis: antibiotic prophylaxis in
neutropenic fever. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:979–95.
11. Kuderer NM, et al. Cost and mortality associated with febrile neutropenia in adult
cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Onc 2002.
12. American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Ad Hoc Colony-Stimulating Factor
Guideline Expert Panel: recommendations for the use of hematopoietic colony-
stimulating factors: evidence-based, clinical practice guidelines. J Clin Oncol
1994;12:2471–508.
13. Available at: http://www.oncologypractice.com/jso/journal/articles/0302s152.pdf.
Accessed December 5, 2013.
 Neutropenic Fever 993

14. Bow EJ, Loewen R, Cheang MS, et al. Cytotoxic therapy-induced D-xylose
malabsorption and invasive infection during remission-induction therapy for
acute myeloid leukemia in adults. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2254.
15. Sonis ST, Oster G, Fuchs H, et al. Oral mucositis and the clinical and economic
outcomes of hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:
2201–5.
16. Bow EJ. Infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Crit Care Clin 2013;29:
411–41.
17. Sickles EA, Greene WH, Wiernik PH. Clinical presentation of infection in granulo-
cytopenic patients. Arch Intern Med 1975;135:715–9.
18. Anaissie EJ, Bodey GP, Rinaldi MG. Emerging fungal pathogens. Eur J Clin Mi-
crobiol Infect Dis 1989;8:323–30.
19. Whimbey E, Englund JA, Couch RB. Community respiratory virus infections in
immunocompromised patients with cancer. Am J Med 1997;102:10–8.
20. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of
effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human sep-
tic shock. Crit Care Med 2006;34(6):1589–96.
21. Zuckermann J, Moreira LB, Stoll P, et al. Compliance with a critical pathway for
the management of febrile neutropenia and impact on clinical outcomes. Ann
Hematol 2008;87:139–45.
22. Ramphal R. Changes in the etiology of bacteremia in febrile neutropenic patients
and the susceptibilities of the currently isolated pathogens. Clin Infect Dis 2004;
39(Suppl 1):S25–31.
23. Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey G, et al. 2002 guidelines for the use of antimi-
crobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis 2002;34:
730–51.
24. Wisplinghoff H, Seifert H, Wenzel RP, et al. Current trends in the epidemiology of
nosocomial bloodstream infections in patients with hematologic malignancies
and solid neoplasms in hospitals in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2003;36:
1103.
25. Engels EA, Lau J, Barza M. Efficacy of quinolone prophylaxis in neutropenic can-
cer patients: a meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:1179–87.
26. Klatersky J, Paesmans M, Rubenstein EB, et al. The multinational association for
supportive care in cancer risk index: a multinational scoring system for identifying
low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:3038–51.
27. De Souza Viana L, Serufo JC, da Costa Rocha MO, et al. Performance of a modi-
fied MASCC index score for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer pa-
tients. Support Care Cancer 2008;16(7):841–6.
28. Kantarjian HM, Wolff RA, Koller CA. The MD Anderson manual of medical
oncology. 2nd edition. Available at: www.accessmedicine.com. Accessed
November 20, 2013.
29. Etling LS, Lu C, Escalante CP, et al. Outcomes and cost of outpatient or inpatient
management of 712 patients with febrile neutropenia. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:
606–16.
30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infectious Disease Society of Amer-
ica, American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Guidelines for pre-
venting opportunistic infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant
recipients. MMWR Recomm Rep 2000;49:1–125. CE1–7.
31. Gardner A, Mattiuzzi G, Faderl S, et al. Randomized comparison of cooked and
noncooked diets in patients undergoing remission induction therapy for acute
myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5684–8.