Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 49522

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2012 | Month : June | Volume : 6 | Issue : 5 | Page : 839 - 843 Full Version

Evaluation of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Score for Identifying Low Risk Febrile Neutropaenic Patients at a South Indian Tertiary Care Centre

Published: June 1, 2012 | DOI:
Mridula Laxman Bengre, M. Venkatraya Prabhu, Arun S., Krishna Prasad, Gopalkrishna Bhat K.

1. PG student, Department of Internal Medicine, Kasturba medical College, Mangalore. Manipal University 2. Professor and Dean, Department of Internal Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. Manipal University 3. Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. Manipal University 4. Associate Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore. Manipal University 5. Associate Professors, Department of Microbiology,Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal University.

Correspondence Address :
Dr Mridula Laxman Bengre
Senior Resident, Department of Internal Medicine,
Kasturba Medical College, Light House Hill Road,
Mangalore-575001 (India).
Phone: 09880034306


Background: Febrile neutropaenia prompts immediate hospitalization for its evaluation and the administration of empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. It represents a major cause of morbidity, mortality and treatment costs in patients who receive chemotherapy. Risk stratification to identify the low risk patients is essential, as these patients may improve with outpatient treatment. This approach reduces the economic burden and thereby improves the quality of life.

Objective: Evaluation of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score and also other factors for identifying the low risk febrile neutropaenic patients at a south Indian tertiary care centre.

Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study which was done at a tertiary care hospital in Mangalore, from December 2009 to July 2011. The inclusion criteria were the histological diagnosis of malignancy, neutropaenia which was secondary to chemotherapy, an absolute neutrophil count of < 500/cumm3, oral temperature of >38.30C or >38 0C for 1 hour and age > 13 years. The patients were stratified, based on the MASCC score. Other clinical laboratory parameters were explored for identifying the low risk patients.

Results: A total of 50 cases of febrile neutropaenia were documented; 13 in solid cancers and 37 in haematological cancers. Acute leukaemia was the commonest underlying malignancy (26 out of 50). Seventeen cases were clinically documented, 16 cases were microbiologically documented and in 17 cases, no cause was found. Bacteraemia was the commonest (8 out of 16) among the MDI and E coli was the commonest organism which was identified (5 cases). All the patients were classified, based on the MASCC score. The association of the MASCC score and its outcome in terms of the recovery of the counts were found to be statistically significant (p <0.001). Other factors which were found to be statistically significant in identifying the risk of complications were; tachypnea rate> 24/minutes (p <0.001), Temperature>1020F (p= 0.049), hypotension (BP) value of <90/60 (p<0.001), ANC< 50/Cumm3 (p <0.001), deranged renal parameters (p=0.05), bacteraemia (p=0.001) and the inpatient status (p=0.006).

Conclusions: The MASCC score correctly identifies patients with low risk febrile neutropaenia.


Febrile neutropaenia, Absolute neutrophil count, Acute leukaemia, Bacteraemia

Febrile neutropaenia is defined as a single oral temperature of greater than 38.30C (1010F) or 380C or greater (1000F) for over 1 hour in a patient with an absolute neutrophil count of less than 500/cumm3 or less than1,000/cumm3, with a predicted rapid decline (1). The pattern of the fever in neutropaenia is non-specific and it is not pathognomonic of any type of infections or non-infectious processes. Neutropaenia which results from cytotoxic chemotherapy is the most common risk factor for severe infec-tions. The duration of the neutropaenia also contributes significantly to the risk of serious infections. This risk is significantly greater at lower neutrophil counts; such that 100% patients with an ANC of <100 cells/Cumm3 which lasts for 3 weeks or more develop documented infections (2).

The risk for developing complications in patients with febrile neutropaenia is variable. Differentiating between the high and low risk patients with fever and neutropaenia has a significant impact on the decisions that affect the patients’ quality of life and the overall medical costs. In 2000, an internationally validated scoring system to identify the low risk febrile neutropaenia cancer patients was developed by the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). This study included 1351 patients from 20 institutions in 15 countries. A numeric risk index score was constructed, which could weigh the different features which were associated with a high probability of a favourable outcome. A higher global score indicated a greater likelihood of fever resolution without any serious complications. A MASCC risk index score of 21 or more points identified the low risk patients (3). Considering the heterogenicity of the populations with febrile neutropaenia, efforts continue to be made to separate the patients who are at a low and high risk of serious complications and to characterize each population. These efforts will have important implications in terms of the management of these patients.

The purpose of this study was to categorize the febrile neutropenic episodes in cancer patients into clinically documented infections, microbiologically documented infections and fever of unknown origin. It also aimed to evaluate the usefulness of the MASCC scoring index and to identify other risk factors.

The objectives of the present study were, to investigate the clinical spectrum of febrile neutropaenia and to evaluate the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score for identifying the low risk febrile neutropaenia patients.

Material and Methods

The present, cross sectional, prospective study was carried out in our tertiary care hospital during December 2009 to July 2011. The study population consisted of all the cancer patients who were hospitalized with febrile neutropaenia. The study had the approval of the institutional ethics committee.

Inclusion Criteria
Fever: A single oral temperature of greater than 38.3 0C (101 0F) or 38 0C or greater (100 0F) for over 1 hour.

Neutropaenia: an absolute neutrophil count of less than 500/ cumm3. The suspicion that the patient could have any underlying malignancy which could be treated by chemotherapy.

Exclusion Criteria
Patients under 13 years of age.
The selected patients were studied in detail. The evaluation consisted of taking a complete history and a swift, meticulous, physical examination with special attention being given to the mouth, skin, catheter exit site, and the perianal region. The laboratory investigations included a complete blood count, a differential count and the calculation of the absolute neutrophil count. A conventional broth culture (by using Tryptic soy broth) was used for the blood culture. Other clinical specimens were inoculated on blood agar, chocolate agar and Mac Conkey’s agar and they were incubated at 370C for 24-48 hours. The bacterial isolates were identified by using standard methods (4). A chest X-ray was done when respiratory symptoms were present. The absolute neutrophil count was determined by: WBC count × (% mature neutrophils + % bands). Each patient was given a MASCC score based on the following scoring system and the response was studied.

Scoring system for risk of complications among febrile neutropenic patients, based on the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer predictive model MASCC score: (3)

Maximum score: 26

The statistical analysis of the results was done by using the Chi square test, ANOVA and the Unpaired T test.


A total of 50 cases of febrile neutropaenia were studied; out of them 27 were males and 23 were females. A bimodal peak in the age group was seen, with 13 cases in the age group of 20-30 yrs and 11 cases in the 40-50 yrs age group. A majority of the patients in the study group had an underlying haematological malignancy (37 out of 50 cases) (Table/Fig 1). Acute leukaemia was the commonest underlying malignancy which was observed in the study (26 cases). Among the solid cancers, breast cancer was the commonest one which was observed in the study. A majority of the cases, ie. 68 percent had fever between 7 to 14 days following the chemotherapy cycle. Each episode was categorised. 17 cases had clinically documented infection (CDI), 16 cases had microbiologically documented infection (MDI) and 17 cases had fever of uncertain origin (FUO). Special attention was given to the occult sites of the infection like the oral cavity, the catheter sites and the perianal region. Out of 50 cases, 25 patients had infection at the occult sites. The commonest site which was infected was the perianal region, which was seen in 13 cases. Among the MDIs, eight cases showed a positive blood culture. Gram negative organisms were the most common isolates which were found. E coli grew five cases, out of which two cases grew ESBL producers. The gram positive organism which was isolated was Staphylococcus aureus, which was MRSA (Table/Fig 2). The response to the treatment was studied in terms of the recovery of the absolute neutrophil count. Out of the 50 cases, thirty patients had the recovery of counts within 1 week, nine patients had it within 1-2 weeks and two patients had persistent neutropaenia beyond 3 weeks. There were nine deaths. The mean length of the hospital stay (16 days) was more in the patients with underlying haematological malignancies. Each patient was given a MASCC score based on the scoring system3. The association of the MASCC score and the outcome in terms of the recovery of the counts was found to be statistically significant (p <0.001) [Table/Fig-3]. Other factors which were found to be statistically significant in identifying the risk of the complications were; a tachypnoea rate of > 24/min (p <0.001), a temperature of >1020F (p= 0.049), a hypotension (BP) value of <90/60 (p<0.001), an ANC of < 50Cumm3 (p <0.001), deranged renal parameters (p=0.05), bacteraemia (p=0.001) (Table/Fig 4) and the inpatient status (p=0.006). There was a negative correlation between the MASCC score, the duration of the neutropaenia and fever. The longer the duration of the fever and the neutropaenia was, the lower was the MASCC score. There was a positive correlation between the duration of the fever and the duration of the neutropeania. In patients with prolonged neutropaenia, the duration of the fever was also prolonged.


Over the past several decades, there has been a substantial progress in the treatment of neoplastic diseases; however infections remain a common complication of cancer chemotherapy. The perspectives for the management of febrile neutropaenia in 21st century has changed (5).

Febrile neutropaenia is common in haematological malignancies following chemotherapy as compared to the solid cancers. In our study, out of 50 cases of febrile neutropaenia, 37 cases had underlying haematological malignancies. Acute leukaemia was the commonest underlying malignancy which was observed in this study (26 out of 50 cases). The patients with haematological malignancies were immunocompromised as a result of the underlying malignancy or due to the therapeutic interventions which were employed to manage it (2).

Febrile neutropaenia can occur in both the sexes; there were 27 males and 23 female patients in the present study. The cases were almost equally distributed among all the age groups. A bimodal peak was observed, with 13 cases in the 20-30 years age group and 11 cases in the 40-50 years age group, which was in agreement with the bimodal peak which was observed in the haematological malignancies, as 74% of the cases in the study had an underlying haematological malignancy.

It is known that the risk of febrile neutropaenia is not uniform across the treatment cycles, but that it is greatest during the first cycle (6). In this study, a majority of the episodes occurred following the first and second cycles of chemotherapy. In acute leukaemia, a majority of the episodes occurred after the induction therapy. This was an expected finding as aggressive chemotherapy during the induction phase of the treatment and the uncontrolled leukaemia puts a patient at a higher risk for neutropaenia and thus, for infection. The classic time frame for neutropaenia is 7-14 days post chemotherapy (6). In this study, 68% of the febrile episodes occurred in this time frame. The depth and the duration of the neutropaenia were prolonged in patients with haematological malignancies. The febrile neutropaenic episodes were classified into clinically documented infection, microbiologically documented infection and fever of uncertain origin, based on the clinical and laboratory parameters. It is known that infection is documented only in a minority of the febrile neutropaenic patients (1). In approximately 50% of the patients, no infection was found, in 30%, an infection was microbiologically documented (most commonly, bacteraemia), and in 20%, an infection was clinically documented. However, infections may develop and progress rapidly during a neutropaenic episode. Hence, fever is used as a marker of infection, even if other potential causes of fever are present. In our study, 32% of the cases had a microbiologically documented infection, no infection was documented in 34 % and 34 % had a clinically documented infection. In patients with clinically documented infections, a majority of the patients had gastrointestinal symptoms and respiratory symptoms such as; pain in the abdomen, diarrhoea, vomiting, cough with expectoration and breathlessness.

The initial evaluation of the febrile neutropaenic patients consisted of taking a complete history and a swift, meticulous, physical examination with special attention being given to the mouth, skin, catheter exit site, and the perianal region. In our study, twenty five cases had abnormalities at the occult sites of the infection i.e. the oral cavity, the catheter exit site and the perianal region. A majority of the patients (as high as 13 cases) had a perianal pathology. It is thus important to carefully examine these sites to identify the early signs of the infection. Even a subtle evidence of inflammation must be considered as a sign of an infection. The minimal perianal erythema and tenderness may rapidly progress to perianal cellulitis. Minimal erythema or serous discharge at the site of insertion of a central venous catheter may herald a tunnel or exit site infection. Particular attention should be paid to the sites that are frequently infected or those which serve as foci for the dissemination of the infections, such as the oropharynx, the lung, the paranasal sinuses, the perineum, and the vascular catheter insertion sites.

Among 16 patients with bacterial infections, the blood culture was positive in eight patients. Gram negative bacilli were the most common isolates. E coli was isolated from five cases, out of which two cases grew Extended spectrum β lactamase producers which were resistant to the cephalosporins and aztreonam. The gram positivebacteria which was isolated was Staphylococcus aureus, which was methicillin resistant. In the early 1950s and 1960s, Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequent isolate in the immunosuppressed patients. With the introduction of beta-lactamase-resistant antistaphylococcal pencillins, gram-negative bacilli became the predominant bacterial organisms, which included E coli, Klebsiella spp and Pseudomonas aeroginosa . Since the 1980s, several studies have collectively demonstrated a shift in the aetiology of the bacterial infections from a predominance of gram-negative pathogens to that of gram-positive cocci (7). However, in this study, gram negative organisms were predominant. In our study, a patient with Non Hodgkin’s lymphoma developed right arm cellulitis on day 7 following chemotherapy and the pus culture grew Pasteurella canis. Although there have been reports on the presence of Pasteurella multocida in cancer patients; to the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports on the presence of Pasteurella canis in febrile neutropaenic patients worldwide.

A number of efforts which have been made to identify the risk factors which were responsible for the occurrence of febrile neutropaenia and or their consequences in patients with established febrile neutropaenia have been reported. Increasing age, as a predictor of a poor outcome, was demonstrated in several studies (3),(5),(8). However, in our study, no statistically significant relationship was found between age and the recovery. This observation was probably because of the small sample size. Studies with a larger sample size may provide better results. Previous studies have identified other important risk factors for the serious medical consequences of established febrile neutropaenia which included, inpatient status at the onset of the fever, hypotension, sepsis, comorbities which included cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, leukaemia or lymphoma diagnosis, the severity and the duration of the neutropaenia, previous fungal infections, visceral organ involvement, organ dysfunction and uncontrolled malignancy (9). In this study, the patients with tachypnoea, hypotension, a temperature of >1020 F, an inpatient status at the onset of the fever, an ANC of < 50 cumm3, deranged renal parameters and demonstrable bacteraemia had a poor outcome. Klastersky et al., (3) postulated a scoring system which was based on the logistic equation of the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) predictive model. The maximum value in this system was 26. A score of ≥ 21 was classified as low risk and a score of < 21 as high risk, which predicted a < 5 % risk of severe complications. This scoring system was applied to all the patients in our study and nearly fifty percent of the patients had an MASCC score of ≥ 21. All these patients had a better outcome in terms of the recovery of the ANC and the length of hospital stay. This was statistically significant. Twenty seven patients had a score of ≥ 21. Twenty two patients showed the recovery of the absolute neutrophil count within 1 week. There were no deaths in this group. The MASCC score is thus useful in identifying patients with a low risk. These patients who are at low risk may be given oral medications in an outpatient setting. However, the issue of outpatient management is more controversial and perhaps it needs to be contemplated on an individual basis (10),(11).

The response of the patients was studied with respect to the recovery of the absolute neutrophil count. Thirty patients had the recovery of the ANC within 1 week. Persistent neutropaenia for 3 weeks was observed in two patients with acute myeloid leukaemia. There were nine deaths in the study. Seven patients who died had an underlying haematological malignancy. Bronchopneumonia with multiorgan dysfunction was the commonest cause of death (5 cases). The remaining four cases had severe gastrointestinal sepsis with an evidence of severe oral mucositis which was secondary to the cancer chemotherapy.

Several studies (12),(13),(14),(15) have demonstrated the use of monotherapy versus combination therapy as the empirical treatment for febrile neutropaenia. However, the Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines for managing the febrile neutropaenia patients by categorising them into low risk and high risk groups by using a validated risk assessment tool are being widely employed (16). In our study, 45 out of 50 cases were treated empirically with combination therapy, with parenteral III generation cephalosporin plus aminoglycoside. If the patient remained febrile after 4 days of empirical treatment without the isolation of any organism, parenteral antifungals were added to the treatment. A gram positive coverage was given when there were clinically apparent serious catheter related infections or in the presence of hypotension or septic shock without the presence of an identified pathogen. Numerous studies have been conducted on the efficacy and safety of the CSFs in the prevention of the neutropaenic complications and on the infection risk which is associated with cancer chemotherapy in a variety of malignancies, by using several different chemotherapy regimens (17). In our study, growth factors were given to all the patients who had an underlying haematological malignancy and also in patients with solid tumours who were undergoing aggressive/salvage chemotherapy. Thirty one patients who were given growth factors had a better outcome. This had high statistical significance.

The major economic impact of the neutropaenic complications is clearly the cost which is associated with the hospitalization and the ensuing length of stay (LOS). Previous studies have demonstrated that the length of the hospital stay was prolonged in patients with haematological malignancies, with a mean of 16 days and in patients with solid cancers, the mean length of the hospital stay was 7 days (18). In our study, the mean length of the hospital stay was 8.13 days for patients with solid tumours and it was 19.7 days for the leukaemia patients.


Febrile neutropaenia is more common in patients with underlying haematological malignancies as compared to those with solid cancers. A majority of the patients have no other symptom, apart from fever. The occult sites of the infection are the perianal region, the oral cavity and the central venous catheter site. Even an evidence of a subtle inflammation at these sites should be considered as a sign of the presence of an infection. Gram negative organisms are commonly isolated in febrile neutropaenic patients, Escherichia-coli being the commonest organism which is isolated. Patients with tachypnoea, hypotension, a temperature of >1020F, an inpatient status at the onset of the fever, an ANC of < 50 cumm3, deranged renal parameters and demonstrable bacteraemia have a poor outcome in terms of the recovery of the ANC, mortality and the length of the hospital stay. The first step should be the risk categorisation of the patients by using a validated risk assessment tool like the MASCC scoring system. A MASCC score of ≥ 21 suggests that the patient is at a low risk of severe complications. This scoring system was able to correctly identify the low risk patients in our study.


Gea-Banacloche JC, Palmore T, Walsh TJ, Holland SM, Segal BH. Infections in the cancer patient. In: Devita, Hellmen, Rosenberg, editors. Devita, Hellman and Rosenberg’s Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology. 8th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2008; 2579-611.
Sharma A, Lokeshwar N. Febrile neutropenia in haematological malignancies. J Postgrad Med 2005;51:42-48.
Klastersky J, Paesmans M, Rubenstein EB, Boyer M, Elting L, Feld R 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.
Winn WC, Jr, Allen SD, Janda WM, Koneman EW, Procop GW, Schrekenberger PC et al. Guidelines for the collection, transport, processing, analysis and reporting of cultures from specific specimen sources. In Koneman’s Colour Atlas and Textbook of Diagnostic Microbiology. 6th ed. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006; 103-04.
Sipsas NV, Bodey, GP, Kontoyiannis DP. Perspectives for the management of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer in the 21st century. Cancer 2005; 103: 1103–13.
Freifeld AG, Kaul DR. Infections in the patients with cancer. In: Abeloff MD, editor. Clinical Oncology. 4th ed. USA: Churchill Livingstone; 2008; 717-733.
Oppenheim B A. The changing pattern of the infection in neutropenic patients. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 1998; 41 (suppl D): 7-11.
Hughes WT, Armstrong D, Bodey GP, Bow EJ, Brown AE, Calandra T et al. Guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis. 2002; 34: 730–751.
Talcott JA, Finberg R, Mayer RJ, Goldman L : The medical course of cancer patients with fever and neutropenia. Clinical indentification of a low risk subgroup at presentation. Arch Intern Med. 1988;148(12): 2561-68.
Rubenstein EB, Rolston K, Benjamin RS, Loewy J, Escalante C, Manzullo E et al. Outpatient treatment of febrile episodes in low-risk neutropenic patients with cancer. Cancer. 1993; 71: 3640–46.
Freifeld A, Marchigiani D, Walsh T, Chanock S, Lewis L, Hiemenz J et al. A double-blind comparison of empirical oral and intravenous antibiotic therapy for low-risk febrile patients with neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341: 305–11.
Schmidt G, Egerer G., Karthaus M. Antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic patients: Supportive care in cancer patients; recent developments. Antibiotics and Chemotherapy. Basel Karger. 2000; 50: 20-25.
Pizzo P A. Management of fever in patients with cancer and treatment induced neutropenia. N Engl J. Med. May 6. 1993;328: 1323-32.
Cometta A, Calandra T, Gaya H, Zinner SH, de Bock R, Favero AD et al. Monotherapy with meropenem versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as empiric therapy for fever in granulocytopenic patients with cancer. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1996; 40: 1108–15.
Giamarellou H, Bassaris HP, Petrikkos G, Busch W, Voulgarelis M, Antoniadou A et al. Monotherapy with intravenous followed by oral high dose ciprofloxacin versus combination therapy with ceftazidime plus amikacin as initial empiric therapy for granulocytopenic patients with fever. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2000; 44: 3264–71.
Freifeld AJ, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infect. Dis 2011; 52(4): e56-e93
Hidaka T. Macrophage colony stimulating factor prevents febrile neutropenia which is induced by chemotherapy. Jpn J Cancer Research. 2001; 92:1251-58.
Lyman GH, Kuderer NM: Epidemiology of febrile neutropenia. Supportive Cancer Therapy. 2003;1:1: 23-35.

DOI and Others

ID: JCDR/2012/3644:2244

Date of Submission: Nov 17, 2011
Date of Peer Review: Jan 02, 2012
Date of Acceptance: Jan 12, 2012
Date of Publishing: Jun 22, 2012

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)