ライフサイエンスコーパス: febrile neutropenia

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

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

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

4 to harmonise the treatment of children with febrile neutropenia.

5 There were only two episodes of febrile neutropenia.

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

7 ntion of neutropenic complications including febrile neutropenia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 included neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia.

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

17 g hospitalized children with cancer who have febrile neutropenia.

18 granulocytopenia; there were no episodes of febrile neutropenia.

19 DLTs were seen: reversible CNS toxicity and febrile neutropenia.

20 colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) to prevent febrile neutropenia.

21 marily hematologic, with an 18% incidence of febrile neutropenia.

22 cost of treating non-low-risk patients with febrile neutropenia.

23 days) in 11 patients, with three episodes of febrile neutropenia.

24 Ten patients required hospitalization for febrile neutropenia.

25 150 mg/m2, and G-CSF was required to prevent febrile neutropenia.

26 e therapy with G-CSF was required to prevent febrile neutropenia.

27 and only one of 34 cycles was complicated by febrile neutropenia.

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

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

30 gram-positive antimicrobial in patients with febrile neutropenia.

31 This could explain "febrile neutropenia."

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

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

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

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

36 3 to 5 toxicities during docetaxel included febrile neutropenia (10.9%) and pneumonitis (9.6%); 28.8

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

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

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

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

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

42 (24 [29%] vs 5 [12%]), but not grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia (12 [14%] vs 7 [18%]).

43 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.2% v 5.3%; P <.001), febrile neutropenia (12.7% v 1.9%; P <.001), neutropenia

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

45 33%, and 39%), fatigue (13%, 30%, and 20%), febrile neutropenia (13%, 17%, and 6.1%), and anemia (6.

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

47 (32%), anemia (30%), thrombocytopenia (24%), febrile neutropenia (14%), mucositis (11%), and rash (5%

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

49 8 [3%]), bone pain (16 [5%] vs 5 [2%]), and febrile neutropenia (16 [5%] vs 9 [3%]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

70 , 70% of patients in Arm A and 78% in Arm B; febrile neutropenia, 27% of patients in Arm A and 39% in

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

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

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

74 (3) treatment of afebrile and uncomplicated febrile neutropenia (30% v 60%).

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

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

77 10%) in the combination-treatment group were febrile neutropenia (31%), neutropenia (23%), anemia (15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

85 0 mg twice per day; n = 1); and grade 3 to 4 febrile neutropenia (400 mg twice per day, n = 2; 360 mg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

94 imary prophylaxis in patients at low risk of febrile neutropenia (6% v 16%); (2) secondary prophylaxi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

102 y-stimulating factor shorten the duration of febrile neutropenia after myelosuppressive chemotherapy,

103 taxis (1 patient), and antibiotic-responsive febrile neutropenia (all patients).

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

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

106 The incidence of febrile neutropenia and bacteriologically confirmed seps

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

108 g/m(2)/d dose, one of six patients developed febrile neutropenia and grade 2 proximal myopathy after

109 rs and antibiotics) led to fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia and hospitalization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

119 ss than 500/microL, with only one episode of febrile neutropenia and sepsis.

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

121 Prophylaxis prevented febrile neutropenia and systemic infection.

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

123 in a variety of clinical settings to prevent febrile neutropenia and to assist patients receiving dos

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

125 hich resulted in grade 4 neutropenia, 68% in febrile neutropenia, and 68% in grade 3 to 4 thrombocyto

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

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

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

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

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

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

132 al dose level, one of six patients developed febrile neutropenia, and five of six achieved targeted n

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

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

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

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

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

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

139 Grade 3 or 4 myelosuppression, febrile neutropenia, and weight loss were more pronounce

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

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

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

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

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

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

146 Febrile neutropenia causes significant morbidity and mor

147 Febrile neutropenia causes significant morbidity and mor

148 Febrile neutropenia commonly complicates cancer chemothe

149 4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia compared with patients receiving EP,

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

151 ed cost minimization study based on improved febrile neutropenia cost information and a cost-effectiv

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

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

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

155 Febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, and hematuria were more f

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

157 [55%] of 42 patients in the placebo group), febrile neutropenia (eight [18%] of 44 patients in the s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

181 penia in 16 patients, with three episodes of febrile neutropenia; grades 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia in n

182 : 40 [37%] of 108; group D: 60 [64%] of 94), febrile neutropenia (group A: 10 [9%]; group B: 12 [11%]

183 Febrile neutropenia, >/= grade 3 infection, and >/= grad

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

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

186 V leukopenia, grade IV thrombocytopenia, and febrile neutropenia in 100%, 100%, and 26% of cycles, re

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

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

189 ere leukopenia occurred in 86% to 100%, with febrile neutropenia in 48% to 60% per course.

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

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

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

193 More patients had febrile neutropenia in the induction chemotherapy follow

194 123 [23%] of 528 in the placebo group, with febrile neutropenia incidence of 18 [3%] vs 13 [2%]), hy

195 Febrile neutropenia incidence was low (7%).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

218 Several patients developed febrile neutropenia, nausea, or vomiting.

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

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

221 Febrile neutropenia, neutrophil profiles, time to neutro

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

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

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

225 openia was observed in 41 patients (95%) and febrile neutropenia occurred in eight (19%).

226 Febrile neutropenia occurred in five patients and five (

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

228 Febrile neutropenia of grade 3 or higher was similar in

229 1.4% v 6.8%, respectively; P = .05) and more febrile neutropenia on PCG than GC (13.2% v 4.3%, respec

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

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

232 GSAs in the management of either established febrile neutropenia or afebrile neutropenia remains unce

233 There were no instances of febrile neutropenia or bleeding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

240 istered unless the patient had an episode of febrile neutropenia or prolonged grade 4 neutropenia.

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

242 in a variety of fashions to treat or prevent febrile neutropenia or to assist patients receiving dose

243 osuppression, resulting in fewer episodes of febrile neutropenia (P <.001) and less documented infect

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

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

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

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

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

249 Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as febrile neutropenia, prolonged neutropenia, or grade 3 t

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

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

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

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

254 Febrile neutropenia requiring hospitalization was uncomm

255 rom randomized clinical trials have provided febrile neutropenia risk threshold estimates for the cos

256 riven by hospitalization costs have provided febrile neutropenia risk thresholds for the use of the G

257 All patients with febrile neutropenia should undergo risk stratification o

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

259 15 [19%] patients vs two [3%] patients), and febrile neutropenia (six [7%] patients vs no patients).

260 rog/L) had a higher median number of days of febrile neutropenia than did individuals with higher con

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

262 Febrile neutropenia that required hospital admission was

263 13%) of 23 patients, including uncomplicated febrile neutropenia (the only DLT) in one patient, rever

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

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

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

267 Data from 488 episodes of febrile neutropenia, treated with either of two commonly

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

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

270 The incidence of febrile neutropenia was 1.4%; no patients died of drug t

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

272 (14%), and diarrhea (13%); the incidence of febrile neutropenia was 7%.

273 The incidence of febrile neutropenia was also reduced.

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 common on the standard trea

278 Febrile neutropenia was more frequent in the combination

279 e 3/4 neutropenia occurred in four patients; febrile neutropenia was not observed.

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

281 Febrile neutropenia was observed in 11 patients (14%), w

282 d anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia; febrile neutropenia was observed in 17% of patients and

283 Febrile neutropenia was observed in 4 patients.

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

285 Febrile neutropenia was rare (0.8%).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

298 (231 [78% in MAP vs 248 [83%] in MAPIE), and febrile neutropenia without documented infection (149 [5

299 the following situations: (1) treatment for febrile neutropenia without localizing signs (39% in 199

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