442 research Outcome of severe infections in afebrile neutropenic cancer patients Ksenija Strojnik1, Ksenija Mahkovic-Hergouth2, Barbara Jezersek Novakovic1, Bostjan Seruga13 1 Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Institute of Oncology, Ljubljana, Slovenia 3 University of Ljubljana, Medical Faculty, Ljubljana, Slovenia Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. Received: 28 October 2015 Accepted: 5 November 2015 Correspondence to: Ksenija Strojnik, M.D., Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. Phone: +386 1 5879 282; Fax: +386 1 5879 303; E-mail: kstrojnik@onko-i.si Disclosure: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Results of this analysis were in part presented at the MASCC/ISOO International Symposium on Supportive Care in Cancer in New York City in 2012 (oral presentation of the abstract #734). Background. In some neutropenic cancer patients fever may be absent despite microbiologically and/or clinically confirmed infection. We hypothesized that afebrile neutropenic cancer patients with severe infections have worse outcome as compared to cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients and methods. We retrospectively analyzed all adult cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and severe infection, who were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit at our cancer center between 2000 and 2011. The outcome of interest was 30-day in-hospital mortality rate. Association between the febrile status and in-hospital mortality rate was evaluated by the Fisher's exact test. Results. We identified 69 episodes of severe neutropenic infections in 65 cancer patients. Among these, 9 (13%) episodes were afebrile. Patients with afebrile neutropenic infection presented with hypotension, severe fatigue with inappetence, shaking chills, altered mental state or cough and all of them eventually deteriorated to severe sepsis or septic shock. Overall 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 55.1%. Patients with afebrile neutropenic infection had a trend for a higher 30-day in-hospital mortality rate as compared to patients with febrile neutropenic infection (78% vs. 52%, p = 0.17). Conclusions. Afebrile cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and severe infections might have worse outcome as compared to cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients should be informed that severe neutropenic infection without fever can occasionally occur during cancer treatment with chemotherapy. Key words: afebrile infection; fever; neutropenia; hypothermia; cancer Introduction Infections are important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients.1 Neutropenia is a major risk factor for the development of infection in cancer patients undergoing treatment with chemo-therapy.23 Fever remains the most prevalent and evident sign of infection in neutropenic cancer patients and early initiation of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy significantly reduces mortality in these patients.4-7 Fever is a phylogenetically ancient host defense response to variety of infectious and non-infectious triggers. It is a result of upregulation of the hypo-thalamic thermostatic set point due to the complex interplay between endogenous and exogenous pyrogens, enzymatic and neuronal pathways and endogenous antipyretic neuropeptides and hor-mones.8-11 Pyrogenic cytokines concurrently trigger production of acute phase reactants and stimulate activation of various metabolic, endocrinologic and immunologic systems.12 Data from clinical Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 355-359. doi:10.1515/raon-2015-0033 Strojnik K et al. / Severe infections in afebrile neutropenic patients 443 observations and observational studies show that fever may have a beneficial effect on morbidity and mortality caused by the non-life-threatening infections.81112 However, in some neutropenic cancer patients fever may be absent despite microbiological-ly and/or clinically confirmed infection.5 According to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and some other guidelines afebrile neutropenic patients with new signs or symptoms of infection are considered to be at high-risk for complications and therefore prompt use of empirical antimicrobial agents is recommended.13-15 Nevertheless, the level of evidence for this recommendation is weak (B-III) and is based on the extensive clinical experience of the Panel members.13 Afebrile infections are not unique to neutro-penic cancer patients. Even more, published data shows that non-neutropenic patients with afebrile severe infections, especially those with hypothermia, have higher mortality rates compared to febrile non-neutropenic patients.81617 We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate the incidence and characteristics of severe infections in afebrile neutropenic cancer patients undergoing treatment with chemotherapy at our cancer center. Furthermore, we hypothesized that afebrile neutropenic cancer patients with severe infections have worse outcome as compared to cancer patients with febrile neutropenia. Patients and methods Study population and data collection We performed an electronic database search to identify all adult cancer patients, who were transferred from the Department of Medical Oncology to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana due to the severe neutropenic infection between January 2000 and December 2011. All eligible patients for this study were required to have a severe infection due to a chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Multiple episodes of neutropenic infections in one patient were considered as separate events. All information on relevant patients' characteristics, cancer treatment and episodes of infections were retrieved retrospectively from patients' charts. All data were extracted by a single author. Febrile neutropenic infections were defined as at least one axillary body temperature measurement of > 38°C in the presence of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count < 1 x 109/l at the time of diagnosis of infection with further decline to < 0.5 x 109/l during the following days). Afebrile neutropenic infections were defined as a maximum axillary body temperature < 38°C within 72 hours of diagnosis of neutropenic infection, which had to be micro-biologically and/or clinically documented. Severe neutropenia was defined as an absolute neutrophil count < 0.1 x 109/l. Infection was considered microbiologically documented when a positive culture was yielded from the site of infection, and clinically documented when there were clinical and/or radiological signs of infection without microbiological confirmation. Characteristics of organisms isolated from blood cultures were recorded. At least two positive blood culture sets were required when coagulase-negative staphylococci or other potential skin contaminants (e.g. Corynebacterium spp., Propionibacterium spp., Bacillus spp.) were isolated. Polymicrobial bactere-mia was defined as more than one organism isolated from blood culture specimens obtained within 24 hours of the first positive blood culture specimen in a single patient.18 We calculated the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Risk Index score for each patient as described by Klastersky et al.19 Comorbidities were evaluated using the adult comorbidity evaluation-27 index (ACE-27) and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI).2021 Severe sepsis and septic shock were defined according to the established 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference criteria.22 Our retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board and Ethics Committee (#ERID-KESOPKR/74). Statistical analysis We used descriptive statistics to describe relevant patients' characteristics. The outcome of interest was 30-day in-hospital mortality rate, as proposed by Feld et al.23 Association between the outcome and different prognostic factors and comparison of different characteristics between febrile and afebrile patients were evaluated using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. To compare mean time from the diagnosis of neutropenic infection to the ICU admission between afebrile and febrile patients we used independent-samples t-test. Due to the small number of events a multivariate analysis was not feasible. All significance tests were two-sided using an alpha level of 0.05. No correction was applied for multiple statistical testing. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. 444 Strojnik K et al. / Severe infections in afebrile neutropenic patients 444 TABLE 1. Baseline patients' characteristics, cancer type and treatment Characteristics N (%) (n = 4?) Median age (range) Elderly (> 65 years) 58 years (31-86) 28 (40.6%) Sex Male Female 42 (60.9%) 27 (39.1%) Cancer type Lymphoma Solid tumors 52 (75.4%) 17 (24.6%) Chemotherapy treatment intent Neo/adjuvant solid or 1st-line lymphoma 1 st-line solid or 1st-relaps lymphoma 2nd-line solid or 2nd-relaps lymphoma > 3rd-line solid or > 3rd-relaps lymphoma 35 (50.7%) 13 (18.8%) 12 (17.4%) 9 (13.1%) CCI Low (0) Medium (1-2) High (3-4) Very high (> 5) 28 (40.6%) 30 (43.5%) 8 (11.6%) 3 (4.3%) ACE-27 None (G0) Mild (G1) Moderate (G2) Severe (G3) 17 (24.6%) 16 (23.2%) 13 (18.9%) 23 (33.3%) WHO performance status 0-2 3-4 54 (78.3%) 15 (21.7%) Bone marrow infiltration Yes No Unknown 22 (31.9%) 29 (42.0%) 18 (26.1%) Previous neutropenic infection Yes No 24 (34.8%) 45 (65.2%) Site of infectiona Bloodstream Lower respiratory tractb Gastrointestinal tractc Upper respiratory tract Urinary tract Skin and soft tissue Unexplained feverd 25 (36.2%) 25 (36.2%) 13 (18.8%) 2 (2.9%) 1 (1.5%) 1 (1.5%) 2 (2.9%) Time period of ICU admission 2000-2003 2004-2011 8 (13.6%) 51 (86.4%) (year) ACE-27 = adult comorbidity evaluation-27 index; CCI = Charlson comorbidity index; ICU = Intensive Care Unit; WHO = World Health Organization a Includes 53 episodes of micro bio logically documented infection (MDI) and 16 episodes of clinically documented infection (CDI) b Pneumonias with 13 cases of MDI and 12 cases of CDI with radiological signs only c Includes cases of cholecystitis, peritonitis, neutropenic enterocolitis d CDI with fever and signs of septic shock Results Study population We identified 69 episodes of neutropenic infections in 65 cancer patients treated with chemotherapy, who required admission to the ICU during the 11-year period. Four patients had two separate episodes of febrile neutropenic infection. Baseline patients' characteristics, cancer type and treatment are summarized in Table 1. Patients received a median of one cycle (range 1-9 cycles) of treatment with chemotherapy prior to the episode of neutropenic infection. Median overall length of hospitalization and hospitaliza- tion in the ICU were 14 days (range 1-52 days) and 5 days (range 1-34 days), respectively. A median MASCC score was 14 (range 0-21). Only two episodes were considered low-risk according to the MASCC score. In the remaining 67 high-risk episodes, 35 had the MASCC score < 15. Thirty patients (43.5%) had severe neutropenia at the onset of neutropenic infection. In 21 (30.4%) and 19 (27.5%) episodes patients received either prophylactic or therapeutic granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSF), respectively. Infections were microbiologically documented in 53 (76.8%) episodes. Out of the remaining 16 clinically documented infections, 13 were confirmed radiologically or with ultrasound (12 pneumonias and one cholecystitis), two patients had fever with clinical signs of septic shock and one had cellulitis. Details about the sites of infection are listed in Table 1. Bloodstream and lower respiratory tract were the most common sites of infection. The most common microbiological isolates from blood cultures were gram-negative bacteria in 72% (E.coli in eight, Pseudomonas aeruginosa in three, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in three, Klebsiella pneumoniae in two, Acinetobacter baumannii in one and unidentified non-fermenting gram-negative bacteria in one episode). Gram-positive bacteria were isolated from three out of 25 positive blood cultures (Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus pneumoniae and methicillin-re-sistant Staphylococcus aureus). In one case anaerobic bacteremia was identified (Clostridium tertium). There were two cases of polymicrobial blood infection (with E.coli, Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans in one, and Enterobacter asburiae, Proteus mirabilis and Enterococcus faecalis in the other). Candidemia with Candida albicans was seen in one case. Median time from the diagnosis of neutropenic infection to the ICU admission was 10 hours (range 0 hours - 27 days). Reasons for ICU admission were septic shock in 39 (56.5%) patients, severe sepsis in 20 (29%) patients, pulmonary thromboembolism in three patients and seven patients were already in the ICU at the onset of neutropenic infection. In 61 (88.4%), 30 (43.5%), 6 (8.7%) and 11 (15.9%) episodes vasopressors and/or inotropes, mechanical ventilation, dialysis and surgery were required, respectively. Afebrile neutropenic infections Sixty (87%) episodes of neutropenic infections were febrile and only 9 (13%) episodes, which oc- Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. Strojnik K et al. / Severe infections in afebrile neutropenic patients 445 curred in 9 patients, were afebrile. Median age of patients with afebrile infection was 56 years (range 41-82 years). All were considered high-risk with a median MASCC score of 13 (range 7-18). There were no differences between patients with afebrile and febrile neutropenic infection with regard to age, sex, comorbidities, status at the time of diagnosis of neutropenic infection, MASCC score, severity of neutropenia, type of infection, rate of Gram negative or polymicrobial bacteremias and time to the ICU admission. However, patients with afebrile neutropenic infection were more likely to have solid tumors (Table 2). Five patients were afebrile throughout the episode of infection, in two patients there was a history of fever at home, and two patients developed fever on the 5th and 7th day of hospitalization, respectively, due to a secondary, health care-associated infection. The highest recorded temperature within 72 hours of diagnosis of neutropenic infection was 37.2°C or lower in five patients, and between 37.4 and 37.8°C in the remaining four patients. Six patients (66.7%) received drugs with potential antipyretic effect (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, corticosteroids, meta-mizole) at least once within 48 hours prior and 72 hours after the diagnosis of neutropenic infection, five intermittently and only one continuously. Similarly, 56.7% of patients with febrile neutropenic infection received drugs with potential antipyretic effect (p = 0.73). There was no difference in the rate of afebrile neutropenic infections in patients who received drugs with antipyretic effect compared to patients who did not (15% vs. 10.3%, respectively, p = 0.72). Presenting clinical signs and symptoms of infection in afebrile neutropenic patients were hypotension, severe fatigue with inappetence, shaking chills, altered mental state and cough, in descending order of frequency. All of them eventually deteriorated to severe sepsis or septic shock. Eight patients (89%) had microbiologically documented infections: four had gram-negative bacteremias (two E.coli, one Klebsiella pneumoniae, one Pseudomonas aeruginosa), two had polymicrobial peritonitis, one had a gram-positive pneumonia and one had a gram-negative urinary tract infection but without blood culture drawn. One patient had a radiologically documented pneumonia. Outcome In all patients with severe neutropenic infection 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 55.1%. In four TABLE 2. Comparison between patients with afebrile and febrile neutropenic infection Characteristics Afebrile (n = 9) Febrile (n = 60) p-value Age (years) > 65 4 24 1.0 < 65 5 36 Sex Male 4 38 0.28 Female 5 22 Cancer type Lymphoma 3 49 0.005 Solid tumors 6 11 CCI Low (0) 5 23 0.47 Medium - very high (> 1) 4 37 ACE-27 None - mild (G0-1) 5 28 0.73 Moderate - severe (G2-3) 4 32 Status at Inpatient 3 34 0.29 diagnosis Outpatient 6 26 MASCC score < 15 5 30 1.0 > 15 4 30 Severe Yes 3 27 0.72 neutropenia No 6 33 Type of infection MDI 8 45 0.33 CDI 1 15 Bloodstream Gram negativeb 4 16 0.55 infectiona non-Gram negative 0 5 Mean time to 41 54 0.73 the ICU (hours) ACE-27 = adult comorbidity evaluation-27 index; CCI = Charlson comorbidity index; CDI = clinically documented infection; ICU = Intensive Care Unit; MASCC = Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer; MDI = microbiologically documented infection a n = 25 b also includes polymicrobial bacteremias with at least one Gram negative bacteria patients, who experienced two separate episodes of severe neutropenic infection, two survived both episodes and two had fatal outcome during the second episode. Thirty (79%) deaths occurred in the ICU and the remaining deaths occurred after the ICU discharge. Cause of death was attributed to the uncontrolled infection in 31 patients, pulmonary thromboembolism in three, comorbidities in two, and cancer progression in two patients. In patients with afebrile neutropenic infection episode 30-day in-hospital mortality rate was 78%. While in six patients death occurred due to the uncontrolled infection, one patient died due to the cancer progression. The remaining two patients who survived had radiologically documented pneumonia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteremia. Prognostic factors associated with 30-day inhospital mortality are listed in Table 3. Patients with afebrile neutropenic infection had a trend for a higher 30-day in-hospital mortality rate as compared to patients with febrile neutropenic infection (78% vs. 52%, p = 0.17). MASCC score < 15 (71% vs. 38%, p = 0.006), lactic acidosis (100% vs. 53%, p = 0.04) and use of mechanical ventilation (87% vs. 31%, p < 0.001) were all associated with significantly higher 30-day in-hospital mortality rates. We did Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. 446 Strojnik K et al. / Severe infections in afebrile neutropenic patients 446 TABLE 3. Prognostic factors associated with 30-day in-hospital mortality Prognostic factors Died (n = 38) Survived (n = 31) p-value Age (years) > 65 17 11 0.44 < 65 21 20 Cancer type Lymphoma 29 23 0.84 Solid tumors 9 8 CCI Low (0) 17 11 0.44 Medium - very high 21 20 ACE-27 None - mild (G0-1) 20 13 0.38 Moderate - severe 18 18 (G2-3) G-CSF Yes 14 7 0.2 prophylactic No 24 24 G-CSF Yes 12 7 0.41 therapeutic No 26 24 Fever status Febrile 31 29 0.17 Afebrile 7 2 MASCC score < 15 25 10 0.006 > 15 13 21 Bloodstream Yes 15 10 0.54 infection No 23 21 Mechanical Yes 26 4 P < 0.001 ventilation No 12 27 Lactic acidosisa Yes 7 0 0.04 No 31 27 Time period of 2000-2003 4 4 1.0 ICU admission 2004-2011 34 27 (year) ACE-27 = adult comorbidity evaluation-27 index; CCI = Charlson comorbidity index; G-CSF = granulocyte-colony stimulating factors; ICU = Intensive Care Unit; MASCC = Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer; a n = 65 not find any significant association between the mortality and age, cancer type, comorbidities as assessed by the two different comorbidity indexes, presence of bloodstream infection, use of G-CSF and time period of ICU admission. Discussion Fever in neutropenic cancer patients with infections is only rarely absent and may predict worse outcome.13-15 In our study we identified 69 episodes of severe neutropenic infection in 65 cancer patients, among which 9 (13%) episodes were afebrile. All afebrile neutropenic infection episodes were either microbiologically and/or radiologically documented and all progressed to severe sepsis or septic shock. Patients with afebrile neutropenic infection had a trend for a higher 30-day in-hospital mortality rate as compared to patients with febrile neutropenic infection (Table 3). Majority of published studies to date, which evaluated cancer patients with neutropenic infections, included only patients with febrile neutrope- nia. Sickles et al. studied clinical signs of the five most common localized infections (pharyngitis, skin infection, pneumonia, anorectal infection and urinary tract infection) in neutropenic and non-neutropenic cancer patients. They reported that fever was much more common in neutropenic patients than in non-neutropenic ones. When analyzing all infection sites together, fever (defined as > 38°C) was absent in 2-10% of all patients, depending on severity of neutropenia (in those with absolute neutrophil count < 0.1 x 109/l fever was absent in only 2%).5 Published data show that 18-40% and 10-20% of non-neutropenic patients develop normother-mia or hypothermia, respectively, despite infection with severe sepsis or septic shock.91624-29 However, definitions of fever, normothermia and hypothermia differed in published studies. Recently published study by Weinkove et al. reported 23% incidence of afebrile neutropenic sepsis in subgroup of patients with hematological malignancies (20% of these had a peak body temperature below 36.5°C and the remaining between 36.5 and 37.4°C during first 24 hours in the ICU).30 According to our results, overall mortality rate in the ICU was 55.1% and was in line with published results of other studies.31-35 Lower MASCC score (MASCC score <15), need for mechanical ventilation and lactic acidosis at the time of the ICU admission were associated with significantly higher 30-day in-hospital mortality (Table 3). These observations are in line with previously reported studies in patients with severe infections.323436-39 Although studies have reported improved survival rates of critically ill cancer patients during the past decade as compared to later time periods, in part due to implementation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, we did not find any significant difference in mortality rates between patients treated in the ICU before and after 2004 (50 vs. 55%, respectively, p = 1.0) (Table 3).4041 Furthermore, we observed a trend for a higher mortality rate in patients with afebrile neutropenic infections as compared to patients with febrile neutropenic infections (78 vs. 52%, p = 0.17) (Table 3). Published data show that patients with severe infections and hypothermia more likely develop septic shock as compared to those who are not hypothermic.252729 Furthermore, reported mortality rates in this subpopulation are consistently higher compared to normothermic or febrile patients, and are in range between 50-80%.24-2942 In contrast, data on patients with normothermic response to severe infection are inconsistent.24-28 Results of recently published large Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. Strojnik K et al. / Severe infections in afebrile neutropenic patients 447 multicentric retrospective registry study, which included 4027 patients with neutropenic sepsis, showed that patients with neutropenic sepsis and peak temperature below 36.5°C (hypothermia) within the first 24 hours of admission to the ICU had approximately two-fold higher risk for in-hos-pital death as compared to normothermic (defined as temperatures between 36.5 and 37.4°C) patients. They did not observe any significant difference in mortality between normothermic and febrile (peak temperature of > 37.5°C) patients. Similar was observed in a subgroup of patients with neutropenic sepsis and hematological malignancy.30 Due to the retrospective nature of our study and due to the small number of patients with afebrile infections further subset-analyses (hypothermic vs. normo-thermic vs. febrile) were not feasible. Use of drugs with antipyretic effect (e.g. some drugs used for the management of pain, corticos-teroids) could potentially block the development of fever, which may delay presentation of these patients with serious infections to medical services. However, in our study there were no differences in the use of drugs with antipyretic effect in the febrile and afebrile subgroups of patients. Also, we did not find any differences in the rate of afebrile neutropenic infections in patients who received drugs with antipyretic effect and those who did not. Results of recently published study showed that feeling unwell in the absence of fever, which is a key marker of neutropenic sepsis, might discourage patients from contacting a doctor.43 Delay of treatment with effective antimicrobial therapy in patients with severe neutropenia and bactere-mia or septic shock is associated with increased mortality rates.4445 Patients on chemotherapy treatment should be informed that, although rarely, fever may be absent even in severe neutropenic infections and warned of possible other signs and symptoms of infection. In our study we observed that patients with afebrile neutropenic infection can present with hypotension, severe fatigue with inappetence, shaking chills, altered mental state or cough. Our study has several limitations. First, this was a retrospective, single center study with a small sample size of heterogeneous patient population and therefore our findings are only hypothesis-generating. Only patients with solid tumors and lymphomas are treated at our center; patients with acute leukemias who frequently experience neu-tropenic infections were thus excluded from our analysis. Second, due to the small number of patients with afebrile infection a multivariate analysis as well as further subset comparisons (e.g. hypothermic vs. normothermic vs. febrile patients) were not feasible. Third, due to retrospective nature of our study we were not able to assess the potential impact of delayed effective antimicrobial therapy on the outcome of febrile and afebrile patients. Fourth, definition of febrile and afebrile episodes in our study may be flawed as axillary body measurement, used in our study, correlates least accurately with core body temperature with as much as 0.9°C variation.46 According to the international guidelines for the management of infections in neutro-penic cancer patients body temperature should be measured orally, while axillary measurements are discouraged.1315 Finally, we evaluated all episodes of severe neutropenic infections (with four patients having two separate episodes of febrile neutropen-ic infections), as occurring in real life practice, and thus risked potential statistical bias.23 In conclusion, afebrile infections in neutropenic cancer patients are rare. However, in cancer patients with chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and severe infections, afebrile patients might be at higher risk of death due to the complications of infection as compared to patients with febrile neu-tropenia. In addition, we identified lower MASCC score (MASCC score < 15), need for mechanical ventilation and lactic acidosis at the time of the ICU admission as negative prognostic factors for outcome. Patients on potentially myelosuppres-sive systemic cancer treatment should be informed that occasionally fever may be absent during the episode of neutropenic infection, and that they should immediately seek medical attention if signs or symptoms suggestive of infection occur, even in the absence of fever. References 1. Viscoli C. The evolution of the empirical management of fever and neutropenia in cancer patients. JAntimicrob Chemother 1998; 41(Suppl D): 65-80. 2. Bodey GP, Buckley M, Sathe YS, Freireich EJ. Quantitative relationships between circulating leukocytes and infection in patients with acute leukemia. Ann Intern Med 1966; 64: 328-40. 3. Zwitter M, Stanic K, Rajer M, Kern I, Vrankar M, Edelbaher N, et al. Intercalated chemotherapy and erlotinib for advanced NSCLC: high proportion of complete remissions and prolonged progression-free survival among patients with EGFR activating mutations. Radiol Oncol 2014; 48: 361-8. 4. Klastersky J, Awada A, Paesmans M, Aoun M. Febrile neutropenia: a critical review of the initial management. Crit Rev OncolHematol 2011; 78: 185-94. 5. Sickles EA, Greene WH, Wiernik PH. Clinical presentation of infection in granulocytopenic patients. Arch Intern Med 1975; 135: 715-9. 6. Rolston KI. Neutropenic fever and sepsis: evaluation and management. Cancer Treat Res 2014; 161: 181-202. 7. Kukec RR, Grabnar I, Vovk T, Mrhar A, Kovac V, Cufer T. Febrile neutropenia in chemotherapy treated small-cell lung cancer patients. Radiol Oncol 2015; 49: 173-80. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. 448 Strojnik K et al. / Severe infections in afebrile neutropenic patients 448 8. Launey Y, Nesseler N, Mallédant Y, Seguin P. Clinical review: fever in septic ICU patients-friend or foe? Crit Care 2011; 15: 222. 9. Schortgen F. Fever in sepsis. Minerva Anestesiol 2012; 78: 1254-64. 10. Kluger MJ, Kozak W, Conn CA, Leon LR, Soszynski D. Role of fever in disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1998; 856: 224-33. 11. Hasday JD, Fairchild KD, Shanholtz C. The role of fever in the infected host. Microbes Infect 2000; 2: 1891-904. 12. Mackowiak PA. Concepts of fever. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1870-81. 13. Freifeld AG, 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. Clin Infect Dis 2011; 52: 56-93. 14. De Naurois J, Novitzky-Basso I, Gill MJ, Marti FM, Cullen MH, Roila F. Management of febrile neutropenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol 2010; 21(Suppl 5): 252-6. 15. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: Prevention and treatment of cancer-related infections. Version 2. [Cited 11 Jun 2015]. Available at http://www.nccn.org/professionals/ physician_gls/pdf/infections.pdf. 16. Kushimoto S, Yamanouchi S, Endo T, Sato S, Nomura R, Fujita M, et al. Body temperature abnormalities in non-neurological critically ill patients: a review of the literature. J Intensive Care 2014; 2: 14. 17. Hasday JD, Garrison A. Antipyretic therapy in patients with sepsis. Clin Infect Dis 2000; 31(Suppl 5): 234-41. 18. Rolston KVI, Bodey GP, Safdar A. polymicrobial infection in patients with cancer: an underappreciated and underreported entity. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45: 228-33. 19. 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. 20. Piccirillo JF, Tierney RM, Costas I, Grove L, Spitznagel EL. Prognostic importance of comorbidity in a hospital-based cancer registry. JAMA 2004; 291: 2441-7. 21. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 373-83. 22. Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC, Abraham E, Angus D, Cook D, et al. 2001 SCC M/ES IC M/ACC P/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 2003; 31: 1250-6. 23. Feld R, Paesmans M, Freifeld AG, Klastersky J, Pizzo PA, Rolston KVI, et al. Methodology for clinical trials involving patients with cancer who have febrile neutropenia: updated guidelines of the Immunocompromised Host Society/Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer, with emphasis on outpatient studies. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35:1463-8. 24. Peres Bota D, Lopes Ferreira F, Mélot C, Vincent JL. Body temperature alterations in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30: 811-6. 25. Kushimoto S, Gando S, Saitoh D, Mayumi T, Ogura H, Fujishima S, et al. The impact of body temperature abnormalities on the disease severity and outcome in patients with severe sepsis: an analysis from a multicenter, prospective survey of severe sepsis. Crit Care 2013; 17: R271. 26. Young PJ, Saxena M, Beasley R, Bellomo R, Bailey M, Pilcher D, et al. Early peak temperature and mortality in critically ill patients with or without infection. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38: 437-44. 27. Drewry AM, Fuller BM, Skrupky LP, Hotchkiss RS. The presence of hypothermia within 24 hours of sepsis diagnosis predicts persistent lymphopenia. Crit Care Med 2015; 43: 1165-9. 28. Sprung CL, Peduzzi PN, Shatney CH, Schein RM, Wilson MF, Sheagren JN, et al. Impact of encephalopathy on mortality in the sepsis syndrome. Crit Care Med 1990; 18: 801-6. 29. Clemmer TP, Fisher CJJ, Bone RC, Slotman GJ, Metz CA, Thomas FO. Hypothermia in the sepsis syndrome and clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 1992; 20: 1395-401. 30. Weinkove R, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Saxena MK, Tam CS, Pilcher DV, et al. Association between early peak temperature and mortality in neutropenic sepsis. Ann Hematol 2015; 94: 857-64. 31. Legrand M, Max A, Peigne V, Mariotte E, Canet E, Debrumetz A, et al. Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med 2012; 40: 43-9. 32. Mokart D, Darmon M, Resche-Rigon M, Lemiale V, Pene F, Mayaux J, et al. Prognosis of neutropenic patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 296-303. 33. Groeger JS, Glassman J, Nierman DM, Wallace SK, Price K, Horak D, et al. Probability of mortality of critically ill cancer patients at 72 h of intensive care unit (ICU) management. Support Care Cancer 2003; 11: 686-95. 34. Regazzoni CJ, Irrazabal C, Luna CM, Poderoso JJ. Cancer patients with septic shock: mortality predictors and neutropenia. Support Care Cancer 2004; 12: 833-9. 35. Souza-Dantas VC, Salluh JIF, Soares M. Impact of neutropenia on the outcomes of critically ill patients with cancer: a matched case-control study. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 2094-100. 36. Paesmans M, Klastersky J, Maertens J, Georgala A, Muanza F, Aoun M, et al. Predicting febrile neutropenic patients at low risk using the MASCC score: does bacteremia matter? Support Care Cancer 2011; 19: 1001-8. 37. Klastersky J, Ameye L, Maertens J, Georgala A, Muanza F, Aoun M, et al. Bacteraemia in febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2007; 30(Suppl 1): 51-9. 38. Gunnerson KJ, Saul M, He S, Kellum JA. Lactate versus non-lactate metabolic acidosis: a retrospective outcome evaluation of critically ill patients. Crit Care 2006; 10: R22. 39. Mato AR, Luger SM, Heitjan DF, Mikkelsen ME, Olson E, Ujjani C, et al. Elevation in serum lactate at the time of febrile neutropenia (FN) in hemodynamically-stable patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) is associated with the development of septic shock within 48 hours. Cancer Biol Ther 2010; 9: 585-9. 40. Azoulay E, Soares M, Darmon M, Benoit D, Pastores S, Afessa B. Intensive care of the cancer patient: recent achievements and remaining challenges. Ann Intensive Care 2011; 1: 5. 41. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, et al. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 296-327. 42. Tiruvoipati R, Ong K, Gangopadhyay H, Arora S, Carney I, Botha J. Hypothermia predicts mortality in critically ill elderly patients with sepsis. BMC Geriatr 2010; 10: 70. 43. Clarke RT, Bird S, Kakuchi I, Littlewood TJ, van Hamel Parsons V. The signs, symptoms and help-seeking experiences of neutropenic sepsis patients before they reach hospital: a qualitative study. Support Care Cancer 2015; 23: 2687-94. 44. Kumar A, Roberts D, Wood KE, Light B, Parrillo JE, Sharma S, et al. Duration of hypotension before initiation of effective antimicrobial therapy is the critical determinant of survival in human septic shock. Crit Care Med 2006; 34: 1589-96. 45. Lin MY, Weinstein RA, Hota B. Delay of active antimicrobial therapy and mortality among patients with bacteremia: impact of severe neutropenia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2008; 52: 3188-94. 46. Bow EJ. Infection in neutropenic patients with cancer. Crit Care Clin 2013; 29: 411-41. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. Slovenian abstracts IX Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 433-441. doi:10.1515/raon-2016-0048 Računalniško modeliranje prototipov aplikatorjev za brahiterapijo raka vratu maternice Petrič P, Hudej R, Al-Hammadi N, Šegedin B Izhodišča. Standardni aplikatorji za brahiterapijo raka vratu maternice ne omogočajo vedno zadovoljivega razmerja med obsevanostjo tarčnega volumna in okolnih zdravih tkiv. Naš cilj je bil razviti metodologijo za razvoj prototipov aplikatorjev z optimalnimi dozimetričnimi lastnostmi. Bolniki in metode. Prednostna naloga je bila razvoj računalniškega orodja za slikovni prikaz porazdelitve tarčnih volumnov (ang. Target-volume Density Map; TDM). Uvodoma smo opredelili zahteve glede funkcionalnosti načrtovanega orodja, na podlagi katerih smo programirali. Z uporabo objektov znanih oblik in velikosti smo preverili natančnost razvitega programa. Končno smo opredelili postopek nadaljnje obdelave TDM-ja, na katerem je temeljil razvoj novih aplikatorjev. Rezultati. Izdelali smo programsko orodje za analizo kontur 2 (ang. Contour Analysis Tool 2; CAT 2). TDM smo naredili z združevanjem obrisov tarčnih področij iz vzorca slik DICOM (ang. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) bolnic z vstavljenim aplikatorjem. Pri združevanju tarčnih obrisov smo s CAT-2 poravnali tarčne obrise na referenčni aplikator. Vsak voksel (angl. voxel, volumetric pixel) TDM-ja je opredelil vrednost, ki je predstavljala število obrisov, ki so ta voksel obdajali. Številčne vrednosti smo pretvorili v področja sivine in shranil TDM v obliki slike DICOM. Nadaljnjo obdelavo TDM-ja smo naredili v računalniškem planirnem sistemu. Z uporabo orodja za avtomatsko vrisovanje smo ustvarili obrise področij z enako sivino (ang. Iso Density Contours; IDC). Območja, ki so obdajala posamezen IDC, smo opredelili kot prostor, v katerem bi lahko bila okolna zdrava tkiva (angl. Residual Volume at Risk; RVR). Po namestitvi standardnih in prototipnih aplikatorjev na TDM in optimizaciji doznih porazdelitev smo zabeležili dozno-volumske parametre in ustvarili karakteristične krivulje aplikatorjev. Slednje, ob upoštevanju predvidene zahtevnosti klinične uporabe in prostorske porazdelitve doze, so služile za opredelitev prototipov z najboljšimi dozimetričnimi lastnostmi. Zaključki. Razvita metoda predstavlja osnovo za razvoj prototipov brahiterapevtskih aplikatorjev, ki omogočajo optimalno dozno porazdelitev v katerikoli klinični situaciji. Pred morebitno rutinsko uporabo novih aplikatorjev je potrebno testiranje, da bi lahko ugotovili njihovo varnost in klinično učinkovitost. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): 442-448. doi:10.1515/raon-2016-0011 Preživetje pri nevtropeničnih bolnikih z rakom in hudo okužbo brez vročine Strojnik K, Mahkovic-Hergouth K, Jezeršek Novakovič B, Šeruga B Izhodišča. Vročina pri nevtropeničnih bolnikih z rakom je lahko odsotna kljub mikrobiološko in/ali klinično potrjeni okužbi. Postavili smo hipotezo, da imajo afebrilni nevtropenični bolniki z rakom in hudo okužbo slabši potek bolezni, kot tisti s febrilno nevtropenijo. Metode. V retrospektivno raziskavo smo vključili vse odrasle bolnike z rakom, zdravljene s kemoterapijo, ki so zaradi hude nevtropenične okužbe potrebovali intenzivno zdravljenje na Oddelku za intenzivno terapijo Onkološkega inštituta Ljubljana med leti 2000-2011. Naš primarni namen je bil ugotoviti celokupno 30-dnevno bolnišnično umrljivost. Povezavo med febrilnim statusom in 30-dnevno bolnišnično umrljivostjo smo ugotavljali s Fisherjevim eksaktnim testom. Rezultati. Ugotovili smo 69 epizod hudih nevtropeničnih okužb pri 65 bolnikih z rakom. Med temi je bilo 9 (13 %) epizod afebrilnih. Tisti z afebrilnimi nevtropeničnimi okužbami so imeli naslednje klinične znake oz. simptome okužbe: hipotenzijo, hudo utrujenost z inapetenco, mrzlico, spremenjeno mentalno stanje ter kašelj; pri vseh je okužba napredovala v hudo sepso ali septični šok. Celokupna 30-dnevna bolnišnična umrljivost je bila 55,1 %. Bolniki z afebrilno nevtropenično okužbo so imeli težnjo višje umrljivosti v primerjavi z bolniki s febrilno nevtropenijo (78 % vs. 52 %, p = 0,17). Zaključki. Izsledki raziskave kažejo težnjo višje umrljivosti pri rakavih bolnikih z afebrilno nevtropenično okužbo v primerjavi s tistimi s febrilno nevtropenijo. Bolnike z rakom, ki se zdravijo s kemoterapijo, bi bilo potrebno opozoriti, da lahko hude nevtro-penične okužbe potekajo tudi brez povišane telesne temperature. Radiol Oncol 2016; 50(4): I-X.