ライフサイエンスコーパス: febrile neutropenia

1 effects (mainly diarrhoea, hypertension, and febrile neutropenia).

2 , neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, and febrile neutropenia).

3 ienced a DLT (grade 3 sensory neuropathy and febrile neutropenia).

4 gram-positive antimicrobial in patients with febrile neutropenia.

5 to harmonise the treatment of children with febrile neutropenia.

6 There were only two episodes of febrile neutropenia.

7 uorescens, and six out of the nine developed febrile neutropenia.

8 ntion of neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia.

9 and five (1%) in the mitoxantrone group had febrile neutropenia.

10 o 4 neutropenia and with 25% who experienced febrile neutropenia.

11 ll patients at high and intermediate risk of febrile neutropenia.

12 , and anemia (9%); there were no episodes of febrile neutropenia.

13 a/vomiting, fatigue, and neutropenia but not febrile neutropenia.

14 ry, 10.9% infectious toxicity, and 9.7% with febrile neutropenia.

15 ted for patients at greater than 20% risk of febrile neutropenia.

16 included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia.

17 ty in patients with greater than 20% risk of febrile neutropenia.

18 g hospitalized children with cancer who have febrile neutropenia.

19 emia and neutropenia; 10 patients (9.3%) had febrile neutropenia.

20 Five (21%) of 24 had grade 3 febrile neutropenia.

21 Two patients in group B died of sepsis after febrile neutropenia.

22 This could explain "febrile neutropenia."

23 receiving placebo, had a lower incidence of febrile neutropenia (1% v 17%, respectively; P < .001),

24 P < .001), infections (16% v 10%; P = .043), febrile neutropenia (10% v 3%; P = .003), and cardiac di

25 a (51%), infections (24%), anemia (12%), and febrile neutropenia (10%).

26 included grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (60%) and febrile neutropenia (10%).

27 There were 29 episodes of febrile neutropenia (10%).

28 3 to 5 toxicities during docetaxel included febrile neutropenia (10.9%) and pneumonitis (9.6%); 28.8

29 ab group vs 246 [40%] in the control group), febrile neutropenia (100 [16%] vs 62 [10%]), fatigue (88

30 tients), neutropenia (93 [42%] vs 83 [37%]), febrile neutropenia (103 (46%) vs 30 [13%]), anaemia (78

31 common grade 3 or worse adverse events were febrile neutropenia (11 [29%] patients in the 120 mg gro

32 ommon grade 3 to 4 toxicities during IC were febrile neutropenia (11%) and mucositis (9%); during CRT

33 adverse events included fatigue (13.1%) and febrile neutropenia (11.5%).

34 , were neutropenia (340 [15%] vs 328 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (112 [5%] vs 142 [6%]), and leucopen

35 (24 [29%] vs 5 [12%]), but not grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia (12 [14%] vs 7 [18%]).

36 rade 3 or worse were neutropenia (20 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (12 [18%]), and thrombocytopenia (si

37 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P <.001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P <.001), neutropenia

38 ), thrombocytopenia (33%), stomatitis (15%), febrile neutropenia (13%), and fatigue (6%).

39 33%, and 39%), fatigue (13%, 30%, and 20%), febrile neutropenia (13%, 17%, and 6.1%), and anemia (6.

40 sed neutrophil count (31 [12%] vs 27 [11%]), febrile neutropenia (14 [6%] vs 16 [6%]), diarrhoea (12

41 and 4 toxicities included neutropenia (35%), febrile neutropenia (14%), fatigue (14%), diarrhea (11%)

42 (32%), anemia (30%), thrombocytopenia (24%), febrile neutropenia (14%), mucositis (11%), and rash (5%

43 re than 28 days (32%), infections (20%), and febrile neutropenia (14%).

44 d not have significantly reduced episodes of febrile neutropenia (149 v 164, P =.41), positive blood

45 of 37 patients), neutropenia (15 [41%]), and febrile neutropenia (15 [41%]) in the pazopanib group, a

46 thrombocytopenia (30%), hypertension (15%), febrile neutropenia (15%), and lung infection (11%).

47 common grade 3 or 4 adverse events included febrile neutropenia (16 [41%] of 39), neutropenia (12 [3

48 8 [3%]), bone pain (16 [5%] vs 5 [2%]), and febrile neutropenia (16 [5%] vs 9 [3%]).

49 group A, 12 in group B, and 22 in group C), febrile neutropenia (16 in group A, nine in group B, and

50 n the placebo plus cytarabine group included febrile neutropenia (167 [47%] vs 117 [33%]), neutropeni

51 de 4 neutropenia, including five episodes of febrile neutropenia, 17% having grade 3 to 4 thrombocyto

52 group; there was no difference in grade 1-2 febrile neutropenia (18 [17%] vs 18 [18%]) or toxic deat

53 reatment-related serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (18 patients [7%]), sepsis or septic

54 quently reported serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (18% [six patients]) and hypotension

55 hea (12.2%), nausea (7.3%), vomiting (7.3%), febrile neutropenia (19.5%), and fatigue (9.8%).

56 patients), neutropenia (32% of cycles), and febrile neutropenia (2% of patients).

57 d nausea (15%); however, stomatitis (2%) and febrile neutropenia (2%) were uncommon.

58 events in the FAC-wP versus the FAC arm were febrile neutropenia (2.7% v 3.6%), fatigue (7.9% v 3.4%)

59 m (63.6% v 50.9%) including a higher rate of febrile neutropenia (21.4% v 12.6%).

60 [7%]), neutropenia (31 [17%] vs seven [8%]), febrile neutropenia (22 [12%] vs ten [11%]), and pneumon

61 he most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (22 [66%]), bloodstream infections (

62 e 3/4 nonhematologic adverse events included febrile neutropenia (22% of patients), other infection (

63 grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (97%), febrile neutropenia (22%), anemia (6%), mucositis/stomat

64 he most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (23 [15%] of 152 in the aprepitant g

65 The most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (23 [15%] patients in the aprepitant

66 gher with ramucirumab than with placebo were febrile neutropenia (24 [9%] of 258 patients in the ramu

67 nts who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (ei

68 eutropenia, 51% v 22%, respectively), as was febrile neutropenia (26% v 2.4%, respectively).

69 ll 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse eve

70 day and 10-day schedules, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (27 [53%] vs 25 [48%]), pneumonia (1

71 Febrile neutropenia (27% v 15%) and grade 3/4 neutropeni

72 The most common serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (29 [31%] of 93 patients), pneumonia

73 utropenia (46%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and febrile neutropenia (29%).

74 rombocytopenia (30%), neutropenia (50%), and febrile neutropenia (3%).

75 were: neutropenia (36.2% v 86.5%; P < .01), febrile neutropenia (3.7% v 10.4%; P = .06), anemia (4.8

76 toxic effects were neutropenia (229, 47.1%), febrile neutropenia (30, 6.2%), fatigue (21, 4.3%), and

77 adverse events (>=10% in either group) were febrile neutropenia (31 [42%] vs 28 [39%]), decreased wh

78 egardless of relationship to treatment, were febrile neutropenia (31 [61%] of 51 patients on the 5-da

79 10%) in the combination-treatment group were febrile neutropenia (31%), neutropenia (23%), anemia (15

80 zumab), diarrhoea (33 [15%] vs 2 [<1%]), and febrile neutropenia (33 [15%] vs 0).

81 grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia (62%), febrile neutropenia (35%), and peripheral sensory neurop

82 ing infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucos

83 common grade 3 or higher adverse events were febrile neutropenia (38 [41%] of 93 patients), pneumonia

84 onhematologic toxicities with regimen M were febrile neutropenia (39.2%) and infections (21.6%).

85 iarrhea (7%), nausea (7%), fatigue (6%), and febrile neutropenia (4%).

86 re grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.6% v 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (4.1% v 1.4%), sensory neuropathy (4

87 fatigue, 5%; peripheral neuropathy, 5%; and febrile neutropenia, 4%.

88 Severe neutropenia followed 95% and febrile neutropenia 40% of the GO courses.

89 The most frequent AEs were pyrexia (58%), febrile neutropenia (40%), and headache (31%).

90 0 mg twice per day; n = 1); and grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia (400 mg twice per day, n = 2; 360 mg

91 events, including incidence and severity of febrile neutropenia (41 [18%] patients in the A+CHP grou

92 ommon grade 3 or greater adverse events were febrile neutropenia (42%), thrombocytopenia (38%), and W

93 vs 82 [29%]), anaemia (53 [19%] vs 17 [6%]), febrile neutropenia (44 [16%] vs ten [4%]), stomatitis (

94 The most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (46/689 [7%] in the vandetanib group

95 the most common grade 3 to 4 toxicities were febrile neutropenia (47% v 35%, respectively), hypokalem

96 neutropenia (124 [60%] of 207 patients) and febrile neutropenia (48 [23%]), whereas in the placebo g

97 requent grade 3 or worse adverse events were febrile neutropenia (48 patients, 25%), neutropenia (30

98 rade 3 sensory neuropathy (11%), and grade 4 febrile neutropenia (5%).

99 hematologic toxicities during induction were febrile neutropenia (55%) and sepsis (35%).

100 group), neutropenia (47 [15%] vs 92 [30%]), febrile neutropenia (57 [18%] vs 34 [11%]), leucopenia (

101 er frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (58 [11%] vs 28 [5%]) and infection

102 e 3/4 neutropenia (45.8% v 21.5%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (6.3% v 3.7%; P = .019), and diarrhe

103 ukopenia (99/689 [14%] vs 77/690 [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (61/689 [9%] vs 48/690 [7%]) were mo

104 ] for lenalidomide vs 85 [16%] for placebo), febrile neutropenia (62 [12%] vs 23 [4%]), diarrhoea (37

105 the ixabepilone arm, and neutropenia (29%), febrile neutropenia (9%), fatigue (9%), neuropathy (7%),

106 D AC-->P, and DD AC-->PG, respectively, were febrile neutropenia (9%, 3%, 3%; P < .001), sensory neur

107 s irrespective of relation to treatment were febrile neutropenia (97 [39%] of 252), anaemia (61 [24%]

108 nts occurring in 5% or more of patients were febrile neutropenia (98 [39%] of 252; five related to tr

109 X arms were neutropenia (19% v 10%), with 7% febrile neutropenia across arms; fatigue (13% v 11%); di

110 prophylaxis also decreases the incidence of febrile neutropenia and all-cause mortality in the first

111 thrombocytopenia (21% [seven patients]), and febrile neutropenia and anaemia (18% each [six patients]

112 ntricular systolic dysfunction; the rates of febrile neutropenia and diarrhea of grade 3 or above wer

113 Grade >/= 3 febrile neutropenia and hypertension were more common wi

114 iving chemotherapy at 20% or greater risk of febrile neutropenia and in those with important variable

115 ibiotic prophylaxis reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia and infection-related mortality both

116 firms that prophylactic antibiotics decrease febrile neutropenia and infection-related mortality in a

117 up (P = 0.07); events were related mainly to febrile neutropenia and infection.

118 openia was frequent in both groups, although febrile neutropenia and infections were more frequent fo

119 rbidities significantly increase the risk of febrile neutropenia and its consequences.

120 Both regimens were well tolerated, and febrile neutropenia and neurotoxicity occurred infrequen

121 Other assessments included the incidence of febrile neutropenia and patterns of colony-stimulating f

122 -week AC --> paclitaxel, minimizing rates of febrile neutropenia and RBC transfusion.

123 Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences we

124 tive complications (numbers of patients with febrile neutropenia and septicaemia, and if given, time

125 Prophylaxis prevented febrile neutropenia and systemic infection.

126 to evaluate the percentage of patients with febrile neutropenia and the percentage of patients requi

127 re more frequent in the combination arm, but febrile neutropenia and toxic deaths were equally low in

128 event in the subcutaneous daratumumab group (febrile neutropenia) and four in the intravenous group (

129 a, time to neutrophil recovery, incidence of febrile neutropenia, and adverse events were recorded.

130 rom the US trial, for survival, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and anemia.

131 rates of severe nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, and dehydration.

132 , fatigue, pneumonia, peripheral neuropathy, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea.

133 Grade 4 leukopenia, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and encephalopathy were more freque

134 ost common toxicities were myelosuppression, febrile neutropenia, and fatigue.

135 duced frequency and severity of neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and infections.

136 most common adverse events were neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and intestinal infection.

137 boplatin had lower grade 3 to 4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and leukopenia than etoposide-carbo

138 iarrhea, vomiting, dehydration, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and paresthesias were DLTs.

139 hemotherapy dose modifications, incidence of febrile neutropenia, and patterns of use of colony-stimu

140 imumab plus platinum-etoposide group (death, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism [n=2 each];

141 ntravenous (IV) anti-infectives required for febrile neutropenia, and the ability to maintain planned

142 penia, increased aspartate aminotransferase, febrile neutropenia, and tumor lysis syndrome.

143 common adverse events of grade > or = 3 were febrile neutropenia, anorexia, hypotension, and nausea.

144 deline recommendations for the prevention of febrile neutropenia are reviewed along with recent publi

145 of pegfilgrastim to reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia associated with docetaxel in breast

146 nostic codes for both neoplastic disease and febrile neutropenia at discharge, were included.

147 g factor prophylaxis reduce the incidence of febrile neutropenia but uncertainty remains regarding th

148 One patient experienced febrile neutropenia but was able to complete paclitaxel

149 erse events without regard to causality were febrile neutropenia, catheter-related infection, epistax

150 Febrile neutropenia causes significant morbidity and mor

151 Febrile neutropenia causes significant morbidity and mor

152 Febrile neutropenia commonly complicates cancer chemothe

153 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia compared with patients receiving EP,

154 patients are especially likely to experience febrile neutropenia, complications from chemotherapy-ind

155 nt was the percentage of patients developing febrile neutropenia (defined as body temperature >/= 38.

156 t-emergent SAEs included dyspnea, pneumonia, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, and pyrexia.

157 een regimens for nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, dehydration, or 60-day all-cause mo

158 Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more f

159 to 4 esophagitis and eight (12%) had grade 3 febrile neutropenia during the concurrent phase.

160 An antibiotic cycling-based strategy for febrile neutropenia effectively reduced carbapenem use,

161 [55%] of 42 patients in the placebo group), febrile neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 patients in the s

162 We enrolled 117 patients with 121 febrile neutropenia episodes before study termination fo

163 0%) included nausea, diarrhea, constipation, febrile neutropenia, fatigue, hypokalemia, decreased app

164 and the incidence of grade 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia favored pazopanib.

165 essive chemotherapy regimen markedly reduced febrile neutropenia, febrile neutropenia-related hospita

166 ous adverse events were pyrexia (six [12%]), febrile neutropenia (five [10%]), lower respiratory trac

167 ), neutropenia (10 [31%] vs four [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (five [16%] vs none).

168 group), anaemia (five [20%] vs three [12%]), febrile neutropenia (five [20%] vs two [8%]), pulmonary

169 ), pneumonia (five [5%] and five [11%]), and febrile neutropenia (five [5%] and six [13%]).

170 ea (five [2%]) in the quizartinib group, and febrile neutropenia (five [5%]), sepsis or septic shock

171 (seven [7%] each), pneumonia (six [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (five [5%]).

172 r more patients) were pneumonia (five [6%]), febrile neutropenia (five [6%]), pulmonary embolism (thr

173 have demonstrated a significant reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) after systemic chemotherapy.

174 nt (IEAT) in oncohematological patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) and its impact on mortality.

175 The highest incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) and largest benefit of G-CSF du

176 t-effective, the cost of hospitalization for febrile neutropenia (FN) had to be more than $31,138 (2.

177 mmittee agreed unanimously that reduction in febrile neutropenia (FN) is an important clinical outcom

178 ) prophylaxis during chemotherapy if risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) is more than 20%, but this come

179 Neutropenia and its complications including febrile neutropenia (FN) remain the major dose-limiting

180 ho presented to an emergency department with febrile neutropenia (FN).

181 Four (16%) of 25 did not complete all ddAC (febrile neutropenia [FN], n = 2; diverticulitis and neut

182 more grade 3 nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and febrile neutropenia; FOLFOX4 was associated with more ne

183 a randomized trial of patients with low-risk febrile neutropenia for whom outpatient care was feasibl

184 han one patient) serious adverse events were febrile neutropenia (four [1%] vs one [<1%]) and neutrop

185 ring in 10% of patients or more overall were febrile neutropenia (four [16%] in the brentuximab vedot

186 y group compared with pneumonia (four [4%]), febrile neutropenia (four [4%]), anaemia (three [3%]), a

187 pplemented patients (six; 18%), and included febrile neutropenia (four patients) and grade 4 thromboc

188 hrombocytopenia with one hemorrhage, anemia, febrile neutropenia, gastrointestinal toxicity, pain, fa

189 vs 28 [6%]; grade 4, 98 [20%] vs 77 [15%]), febrile neutropenia (grade 3, 52 [10%] vs 31 [6%]; grade

190 : 40 [37%] of 108; group D: 60 [64%] of 94), febrile neutropenia (group A: 10 [9%]; group B: 12 [11%]

191 The management of febrile neutropenia has evolved significantly with the d

192 nal cramps, fatigue, transient hearing loss, febrile neutropenia, hypotension, myalgias, and skin ras

193 rombocytopenia (41%), and anemia (30%), with febrile neutropenia in 12%.

194 lly hematologic and manageable, with grade 4 febrile neutropenia in 3% of delivered courses and grade

195 ed after paclitaxel only if patients had had febrile neutropenia in a prior cycle or at investigator

196 pulmonary fibrosis in group B and one due to febrile neutropenia in group C.

197 al practice guidelines for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients receiving cancer chemoth

198 hylaxis is recommended for the prevention of febrile neutropenia in patients who are at high risk on

199 he most common grade 3-4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia in seven (14%) patients, decreased n

200 orously characterized low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia in suitable outpatient settings with

201 More patients had febrile neutropenia in the induction chemotherapy follow

202 123 [23%] of 528 in the placebo group, with febrile neutropenia incidence of 18 [3%] vs 13 [2%]), hy

203 Febrile neutropenia incidence was low (7%).

204 is single arm study, there were two cases of febrile neutropenia (incidence 1.5%).

205 f 270 patients; nine [3%] vs no patients had febrile neutropenia), infections (86 [31%] vs 48 [18%]),

206 Three serious adverse events-febrile neutropenia, intestinal perforation, and cholang

207 pitalizations associated with a diagnosis of febrile neutropenia, intravenous (IV) anti-infectives re

208 elines recommend their use when the risk for febrile neutropenia is >20%.

209 INTRODUCTION: Febrile neutropenia is a common and potentially life-thr

210 le neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febrile neutropenia is approximately 20% or higher and n

211 ophylactic use of CSFs to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia is warranted when the risk of febril

212 nausea, vomiting, mucositis, neuropathy, and febrile neutropenia less than 10% each.

213 Prophylaxis reduced the odds of febrile neutropenia, likely bacterial infection, and blo

214 Inclusion criteria were cancer, febrile neutropenia, low risk of complications as predic

215 tient): grade 4 atrial fibrillation, grade 4 febrile neutropenia, lung infection with grade 4 absolut

216 The higher-than-expected incidence of febrile neutropenia may have been related to the reduced

217 her incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects (febrile neutropenia, mucositis, the hand-foot syndrome,

218 e somnolence (n = 1), confusion (n = 3), and febrile neutropenia (n = 1).

219 o 4 nonhematologic toxicities (> 1) included febrile neutropenia (n = 5), cardiac (n = 2), and CNS he

220 de 3 to 4 nonhematologic toxicities included febrile neutropenia (n = 7) and infection (n = 4).

221 venous plus oral casopitant mesylate group), febrile neutropenia (n=1 [<1%] in the control group, n=4

222 ing FOLFIRINOX alone were neutropenia (n=6), febrile neutropenia (n=1), anaemia (n=2), lymphopenia (n

223 evere adverse events in nine patients due to febrile neutropenia (n=4), diarrhoea (n=2), melena, stro

224 th grades 3 or 4 neutropenia (n=79, 47%) and febrile neutropenia (n=49, 29%).

225 ing PF-04136309 included neutropenia (n=27), febrile neutropenia (n=7), lymphopenia (n=4), diarrhoea

226 ); the most common serious adverse event was febrile neutropenia (n=9 [11%] and n=4 [4%], respectivel

227 apy plus bevacizumab group (infection [n=1], febrile neutropenia [n=1], myelodysplastic syndrome [n=1

228 ab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, and included febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, diarrhoea, pneumonia,

229 ps were also not significantly different for febrile neutropenia, neutrophil profile, time to neutrop

230 Febrile neutropenia, neutrophil profiles, time to neutro

231 s 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (87% of patients); febrile neutropenia occurred in 12%.

232 Febrile neutropenia occurred in 16% of cycles, and tumor

233 Febrile neutropenia occurred in 3% versus 1% of the pati

234 Grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia occurred in 4% of patients.

235 More myalgia, arthralgia, edema, and febrile neutropenia occurred on the TC arm; more nausea

236 Febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was similar in

237 1.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respec

238 , diarrhoea (three [<1%] vs eight [4%]), and febrile neutropenia (one [<1%] vs seven [4%]) were grade

239 up), neutropenia (ten [3%] vs 29 [16%]), and febrile neutropenia (one [<1%] vs seven [4%]); whereas t

240 vents included one (3%) patient with grade 3 febrile neutropenia, one (3%) patient with grade 4 hyper

241 as well tolerated; there were no episodes of febrile neutropenia or grade 4 thrombocytopenia, and the

242 ine group (P < .001) without a difference in febrile neutropenia or infection.

243 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anaemia, and febrile neutropenia or infections.

244 isms due to antibiotic prophylaxis increases febrile neutropenia or mortality.

245 No cases of febrile neutropenia or neutropenia-related infections we

246 ere hospitalized 11 times (3% of cycles) for febrile neutropenia or nonneutropenic infection.

247 Treatment was well-tolerated; there was no febrile neutropenia or symptomatic left ventricular syst

248 cular toxicity (P = .0001), and infection or febrile neutropenia (P = .03).

249 ramucirumab included fatigue, hypertension, febrile neutropenia, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia s

250 de 3) were reported in 4 patients, including febrile neutropenia, peripheral neuropathy, and hyperten

251 tive durations of neutropenia, incidences of febrile neutropenia, platelet transfusion requirements,

252 Serious adverse events, including febrile neutropenia, pneumonia, and pyrexia, were more c

253 tropenia (1% v 17%, respectively; P < .001), febrile neutropenia-related hospitalization (1% v 14%, r

254 egimen markedly reduced febrile neutropenia, febrile neutropenia-related hospitalizations, and IV ant

255 For patients with cancer who have febrile neutropenia, relative costs of home versus hospi

256 Neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia represent major dose-limiting toxici

257 naemia (11 [25%]), leukopenia (seven [16%]), febrile neutropenia (seven [16%]), and pneumonia (seven

258 All patients with febrile neutropenia should undergo risk stratification o

259 openia (eight [16%]), anaemia (seven [14%]), febrile neutropenia (six [12%]), and leucopenia (six [12

260 15 [19%] patients vs two [3%] patients), and febrile neutropenia (six [7%] patients vs no patients).

261 patients), thrombocytopenia (14 [17%]), and febrile neutropenia (ten [12%]).

262 e grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grad

263 ignancy unit: monthly antibiotic cycling for febrile neutropenia that included cefepime (+/- metronid

264 13%) of 23 patients, including uncomplicated febrile neutropenia (the only DLT) in one patient, rever

265 ia (two [4%] vs two [4%] vs three [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (three [6%vs one [2%] vs none).

266 vents were increased lipase (three [7%]) and febrile neutropenia (three [7%]).

267 neutropenia (three [9%] of 35 patients) and febrile neutropenia (three [9%]) in the control group.

268 g cycle 1, and included grade 4 prolonged or febrile neutropenia, thrombocytopenia (grade 4 or grade

269 oxicities demonstrated were culture-negative febrile neutropenia, transient and reversible disseminat

270 penia (five [56%]), anaemia (two [22%]), and febrile neutropenia (two [22%]) reported in more than on

271 toxicities (>or= 20% patients) were nausea, febrile neutropenia, vomiting, diarrhea, rash, and fatig

272 combination group, the rate of grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was 6.2%, the rate of grade 3 or 4 i

273 (14%), and diarrhea (13%); the incidence of febrile neutropenia was 7%.

274 The 16% incidence of febrile neutropenia was higher than that observed in pat

275 Febrile neutropenia was less frequent in elderly patient

276 The incidence of grade 3 or higher febrile neutropenia was low in both groups (ten [3%] vs

277 Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination

278 Although well tolerated overall, significant febrile neutropenia was observed despite prophylactic me

279 Febrile neutropenia was observed in 4 patients.

280 ts commonly used in the empiric treatment of febrile neutropenia was observed only for VGS isolates w

281 Febrile neutropenia was rare (0.8%).

282 Treatment-related febrile neutropenia was reported in 10% of patients.

283 Febrile neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 n

284 Febrile neutropenia was uncommon (< 2%), and the inciden

285 us bevacizumab (9.3% vs. 2.9%, P<0.001), but febrile neutropenia was uncommon (<1% overall).

286 A single serious adverse event (ie, grade 4 febrile neutropenia) was reported.

287 Patients with febrile neutropenia were converted to open-label pegfilg

288 Rates of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were higher in the TPF group; chemot

289 Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were key secondary end points.

290 Grade 3 or 4 fatigue, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia were less frequent in all nab-paclit

291 nintedanib 43.2% v placebo 12.2%); rates of febrile neutropenia were low (4.5% in nintedanib group v

292 The rates of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were similar in both arms.

293 eutropenia, thrombocytopenia, infection, and febrile neutropenia were similar with all three regimens

294 11 (10%) patients, of which neutropenia and febrile neutropenia were the most common (five [5%] pati

295 11%] events), and anaemia and neutropenia or febrile neutropenia were the most frequent grade 3 or wo

296 are; only one patient experienced anemia and febrile neutropenia, which were unrelated to galiximab a

297 There was more febrile neutropenia with CEF (22.3%) and EC/T (16.4%) co

298 Older women experienced more febrile neutropenia with TC and more anemia with AC.

299 (231 [78% in MAP vs 248 [83%] in MAPIE), and febrile neutropenia without documented infection (149 [5

300 refully selected patients with cancer having febrile neutropenia without significantly increased indi