On this page
Quick Reference
Overview and Recommendations
Background
- •Neutropenic fever (NF) is the simultaneous occurrence of fever (≥38.3°C single or ≥38.0°C sustained for ≥1 hour) and severe neutropenia (ANC <500 cells/μL) after myelosuppressive cancer therapy, targeted therapy, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. It is a common oncologic emergency with a crude mortality of 3% to 18%, and it remains the leading cause of unplanned hospitalization and chemotherapy dose reductions in oncology.
- •The pathophysiology centers on a profound deficiency of neutrophils, the primary cellular defense against bacterial and fungal pathogens. Neutropenia impairs phagocytosis, disrupts mucosal barriers (especially in the GI tract), and allows translocation of colonizing organisms into the bloodstream. Chemotherapy-induced mucositis, central venous catheters, and skin breakdown provide additional portals of entry.
- •Gram-negative bacilli now predominate in bloodstream infections, accounting for 56.7% of isolates in hematologic malignancy patients, with Escherichia coli (31%) the most common. Extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) production is seen in 49.3% of gram-negative isolates, and carbapenem resistance in 20.2%, the latter independently associated with 30-day ICU admission and mortality. Gram-positive organisms (coagulase-negative staphylococci, viridans group streptococci) remain important but are less frequent.
- •Risk stratification is essential: the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score (≥21 low-risk, <21 high-risk) is the most validated tool. Low-risk patients have ICU admission rates of 0.4% and mortality of 0.9%, compared with 32.7% and 16.8% in high-risk patients. The two most actionable modifiable risk factors are absence of prophylactic G-CSF and antibiotics; their combined use can reduce FN incidence from ~40% to as low as 0% in high-risk regimens like DCF.
Evaluation
- •Suspect neutropenic fever in any patient receiving chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or after HSCT who presents with fever, chills, rigors, or diaphoresis, even in the absence of localizing symptoms. The classic signs of inflammation (purulence, rubor, tumor) are muted or absent due to the lack of functional neutrophils.
- •Ask about the specific chemotherapy regimen, the date of the last cycle (the nadir typically occurs 7-14 days after myelosuppressive therapy), and the presence of a central venous catheter. Inquire about recent antibiotic use, prophylactic antimicrobials, prior hospitalizations, travel, sick contacts, perianal pain, dysphagia, odynophagia, cough, dyspnea, dysuria, and skin lesions. Obesity is a risk factor: 15% of obese patients receiving full-dose chemotherapy experience FN vs. 6% with adjusted dosing.
- •Examine the oropharynx for mucositis, ulcers, or thrush; auscultate the lungs for crackles or wheezes (radiography may be normal initially); listen for a new murmur (suggesting endocarditis); palpate the abdomen for tenderness, especially right upper quadrant or perianal; gently inspect the perianal region for induration, fissures, or abscess (avoid digital rectal exam in severe neutropenia due to risk of bacteremia); examine all catheter exit sites and the entire integument for cellulitis or ecchymoses; assess neurologic status (altered mental status can indicate sepsis or CNS infection). In elderly patients or those on corticosteroids, hypothermia (temperature <36.0°C) can be an equivalent sign.
- •Order a complete blood count with differential to confirm the ANC and document the severity of neutropenia. Obtain two sets of blood cultures (one peripheral, one from each lumen of the central venous catheter) before antibiotics if this can be done without delaying therapy by more than 30 minutes. Also obtain a urine culture and a chest radiograph (posteroanterior and lateral). Perform a chest CT if the patient has respiratory symptoms, abnormal chest X-ray, or persistent fever beyond 72 hours.
- •Risk-stratify using the MASCC score: calculate points for burden of illness (no/mild symptoms: 5; moderate: 3), no hypotension (5), no COPD (4), solid tumor or no prior fungal infection (4), no dehydration (3), outpatient status at onset (3), age <60 years (2). A score ≥21 defines low-risk; <21 is high-risk. In children, the combination of procalcitonin ≥0.425 ng/mL and IL-10 ≥4.37 pg/mL at presentation predicts bacteremia with 100% sensitivity and 89% specificity, though these biomarkers are not yet incorporated into standard risk tools.
- •Also consider non-infectious causes of fever: chemotherapy-induced mucositis, tumor fever, transfusion-related fever, drug fever, and graft-versus-host disease. However, distinguishing these from true infection at presentation is often impossible, so empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics should never be delayed. The diagnostic workup proceeds in parallel with antibiotic initiation.
Management
- •Initiate empiric broad-spectrum antipseudomonal β-lactam monotherapy within 60 minutes of presentation in high-risk patients. First-line options: 2 g IV every 8 hours, 4.5 g IV every 6 hours (360 mg/kg/day in children as 2-hour infusion), or 1 g IV every 8 hours (120 mg/kg/day in children as 2-hour infusion). No single agent is superior; selection depends on local resistance patterns and formulary.
- •Add empirically only if there is clinical suspicion of catheter-related bloodstream infection, skin/soft-tissue infection, severe pneumonia, or in centers with high MRSA prevalence. Discontinue vancomycin after 48-72 hours if cultures are negative and no resistant gram-positive infection is identified.
- •For low-risk patients (MASCC ≥21, hemodynamically stable, no focal infection, reliable social support), oral therapy is appropriate: 500 mg PO once daily (adults) or 750 mg PO BID plus 875/125 mg PO BID. In children, oral levofloxacin is safe and cost-effective for home-based management.
- •Re-evaluate at 48-72 hours. If the patient is hemodynamically stable and afebrile for ≥48 hours, de-escalate antibiotics regardless of absolute neutrophil count. Options include switching to a narrower β-lactam (e.g., ), downgrading to prophylactic fluoroquinolones, or stopping all antibiotics. Early de-escalation (within 3 days) reduces mortality (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.66) without increasing recurrent fever, bacteremia, or C. difficile infection.
- •If fever persists or recurs after 72-96 hours of broad-spectrum antibiotics, initiate empiric antifungal therapy. First-line: an , 70 mg IV loading dose, then 50 mg IV daily, or 150 mg IV daily. Obtain serum galactomannan and β-D-glucan, and perform CT chest (looking for halo sign, air crescent sign) and CT sinuses. Consider pre-emptive antifungal therapy (start only if biomarkers or imaging are positive) in high-risk patients receiving antimold prophylaxis; this reduces antifungal overuse without increasing mortality.
- •Do NOT use nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for antipyresis, they increase the risk of renal impairment, GI bleeding, and may mask fever trends. Use 650 mg PO every 4-6 hours as needed. Avoid non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (diltiazem, verapamil) for other indications; they are not relevant here but remember to avoid interacting drugs.
- •Initiate prophylactic 6 mg SC once per cycle (single dose) for chemotherapy regimens with an expected FN risk ≥20% (e.g., TCH(P) for breast cancer, dose-dense regimens). Primary prophylaxis reduces FN incidence from 27.6% to 5.0% (NNT=5). Balance the benefit against a small increased risk of secondary AML/MDS (absolute increase ~0.5%).
- •Fluid resuscitate hypotensive patients with 30 mL/kg crystalloid (lactated Ringer's or normal saline), targeting mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg. Monitor for fluid overload, especially in patients with cardiac or renal comorbidities.
- •Refer to infectious disease specialists for persistent fever despite 72-96 hours of antibiotics, for multidrug-resistant organisms, for invasive fungal infections, or when considering prolonged antifungal therapy. Consult oncology for chemotherapy dose adjustments and future prophylaxis planning.
- •Discharge criteria for low-risk patients: afebrile for ≥48 hours, hemodynamically stable, no focal infection, tolerating oral antibiotics, reliable social support, and access to 24-hour medical care. Provide clear instructions to return immediately if fever recurs or clinical status deteriorates.
Board Review — High Yield
- •HSCT with anaerobic coverage, Piperacillin/tazobactam and meropenem increase risk of acute GVHD compared to agents with limited anaerobic activity (RR 1.33).
- •Early de-escalation (How Long study), Stopping antibiotics after 72 h of apyrexia regardless of ANC reduces mortality (OR 0.20) and increases antibiotic-free days.
- •Carbapenem resistance is the key driver of mortality, Not ESBL alone; 20.2% of gram-negative BSIs in hematologic patients are carbapenem-resistant, independently associated with 30-day ICU admission and death.
- •Low-risk MASCC ≥21, Sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 57.3% for uncomplicated course; outpatient management possible with oral antibiotics.
- •Procalcitonin + IL-10 in children, Combination ≥0.425 ng/mL + ≥4.37 pg/mL predicts bacteremia with 100% sensitivity and 89% specificity.
- •CEDMIC trial, D-index-guided pre-emptive micafungin (150 mg/day) noninferior to empiric antifungal therapy, reducing antifungal use (60.2% vs 32.5%).
- •Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis in pediatric ALL, Reduces FN from 64.9% to 46.1% (NNT=6) and BSI by half, without increasing C. difficile.
- •Pegfilgrastim NNT=5, For regimens with FN risk >20% (e.g., TCHP), reduces FN from 27.6% to 5.0%; associated with small increased risk of AML/MDS (NNH=213).
Deep Dive — Evidence Details
Definition and Classification
- ▸Fever: ≥38.3°C single or ≥38.0°C ≥1h; Neutropenia: ANC <500 cells/μL
- ▸MASCC score ≥21 = low-risk; <21 = high-risk
Neutropenic fever (NF) is the simultaneous occurrence of fever and severe neutropenia in a patient receiving myelosuppressive cancer therapy. Fever: single oral temperature ≥38.3°C or ≥38.0°C sustained over 1 hour [3]D5. Neutropenia: ANC <500 cells/μL or ANC <1000 cells/μL with expected decline to ≤500 cells/μL within 48 hours [3]D5. Grade 4 neutropenia (ANC <500) is life-threatening. Duration >7 days increases risk. Risk stratification: MASCC score ≥21 (low-risk) vs <21 (high-risk). Sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 57.3% for uncomplicated course [6]B3b. Mortality 3-18% [3]D5. Pearl: Risk stratification using the MASCC score (low-risk ≥21) guides outpatient vs inpatient management [6]B3b.
| Grade | ANC (cells/μL) | Clinical Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | <LLN - 1500 | Mild; NF risk low |
| 2 | <1500 - 1000 | Moderate; monitor |
| 3 | <1000 - 500 | Severe; NF risk increased |
| 4 | <500 | Life-threatening; NF risk highest |
Epidemiology and Risk Factors
- ▸Prophylactic G-CSF (OR 0.14) and antibiotics (OR 0.34) most modifiable
- ▸≥5% weight loss during chemoradiotherapy increases FN risk (OR 4.49)
Incidence varies by regimen: DCF for esophageal cancer has first-cycle FN rate of 26% [16]B3b. Risk factors: prophylactic G-CSF reduces FN (adjusted OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.04-0.47) [16]B3b; prophylactic antibiotics (OR 0.34) [16]B3b. Timing: early G-CSF (days 3-4) yields 0% FN vs 35% without [16]B3b. Patient factors: age ≥16 years (pediatric success 82% vs 94%, p<0.001) [15]A1b; weight ≥52 kg [15]A1b; bacteremia at presentation [15]A1b; ≥5% weight loss during chemoradiotherapy (OR 4.49) [14]B3b. Pearl: The two most actionable risk factors for febrile neutropenia are the absence of prophylactic G‑CSF and antibiotics; their combined effect can reduce FN incidence from ~40% to as low as 0% in high‑risk regimens like DCF, making prophylaxis the single most important modifiable driver of risk [16]B3b.
| Factor | Effect Size (OR or ARR) | Evidence Level | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prophylactic G‑CSF (DCF) | Adjusted OR 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.47) | 3b | [16]B3b |
| Prophylactic antibiotics (DCF) | Adjusted OR 0.34 (95% CI 0.16-0.73) | 3b | [16]B3b |
| Age ≥16 years (pediatric FN) | Success 82% vs 94% (p < 0.001) | 1b | [15]A1b |
| Weight ≥52 kg (pediatric FN) | Success 82.7% vs 94% (p = 0.002) | 1b | [15]A1b |
| Bacteremia at presentation | Success 52% vs 76.3% (p = 0.0147) | 1b | [15]A1b |
| ≥5% weight loss during chemoradiotherapy | OR 4.49 (95% CI 1.47-13.80) | 3b | [14]B3b |
Etiology and Pathophysiology
- ▸Gram-negative bacteria cause 56.7% of BSIs; carbapenem resistance is key driver of mortality
- ▸Only 30% of episodes have documented BSI; empiric antibiotics still needed
Profound neutrophil deficiency impairs phagocytosis and mucosal barriers, allowing bacterial translocation. Non-infectious causes (mucositis, tumor fever, transfusion) are common, but empiric antibiotics are still needed. Only 30% of episodes have documented bloodstream infection (BSI) [21]D5. Gram-negative bacteria predominate (56.7% of BSIs), with E. coli (31%), followed by Klebsiella, Pseudomonas aeruginosa [24]B3b. ESBL production in 49.3%, carbapenem resistance in 20.2% [24]B3b. Gram-positive organisms (coagulase-negative staphylococci, viridans group streptococci) are less common. Carbapenem resistance independently predicts 30-day ICU admission and mortality [24]B3b. Pearl: In febrile neutropenia, Gram-negative bacilli now outnumber Gram-positive organisms in most centers, and carbapenem resistance, not ESBL production alone, is the key driver of adverse outcomes, making local resistance data essential for appropriate empiric coverage.
| Organism Category | Common Isolates | Frequency Among BSIs | Key Resistance Issue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gram-negative bacilli | E. coli, Klebsiella spp., P. aeruginosa | 56.7% | ESBL 49.3%, carbapenem resistance 20.2% [24]B3b |
| Gram-positive cocci | Coagulase-negative staphylococci, viridans group streptococci, S. aureus | ~40% | Methicillin resistance common |
| Fungi | Candida spp., Aspergillus spp. | Variable | Considered in persistent fever |
Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment
- ▸Fever is often the only sign; do not delay antibiotics
- ▸History includes chemotherapy regimen, catheter, obesity (risk factor)
Fever is the cardinal sign; classic inflammation signs (purulence, rubor) are muted. Defined as single oral temperature ≥38.3°C or ≥38.0°C sustained ≥1 hour. History: chemotherapy regimen, last cycle date (nadir 7-14 days), central venous catheter, recent antibiotics, obesity (15% risk vs 6% with adjusted dosing) [26]B3b. Physical exam: oropharynx (mucositis), lungs, heart (new murmur), abdomen, perianal (avoid digital rectal exam), skin, catheter sites, neurologic. In elderly or on corticosteroids, hypothermia <36.0°C may be equivalent. Pearl: The single most important clinical rule: in a neutropenic patient, any fever is a medical emergency; do not wait for localizing signs before initiating empiric antibiotics.
Diagnostic Workup
- ▸Blood cultures before antibiotics, but do not delay >30 min
- ▸Positive blood cultures indicate higher risk of treatment failure
Obtain blood cultures (two sets, peripheral and central line) before antibiotics if possible, but do not delay beyond 30 minutes. Also urine culture, chest X-ray. Blood cultures positive in 6.2% of episodes; treatment success lower (52% vs 76.3%, p=0.0147) [15]A1b. For persistent fever >72h, repeat cultures, CT chest/abdomen, consider biomarkers. Procalcitonin and CRP have limited role. Algorithm: start antibiotics within 60 min if severe; otherwise after cultures. Pearl: The diagnostic workup is most valuable when cultures are obtained before antibiotics, but the presence of positive blood cultures identifies a subgroup at highest risk of treatment failure (success rate 52% vs 76%), mandating close follow-up and rapid escalation if clinical response is inadequate [15]A1b.
| Test | Timing | Indication | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blood culture (2 sets) | Before antibiotics | All patients | From peripheral vein and each central line lumen |
| Urine culture | Before antibiotics | All patients | Clean catch or catheter; high yield in asymptomatic bacteriuria |
| Stool culture | Before antibiotics | Diarrhea present | Also test for C. difficile toxin |
| Chest radiograph | Within 24 h | All patients | Low sensitivity for fungal disease |
| CT chest/abdomen/pelvis | After 48-72 h if persistent fever | Source unclear, high risk | Detects hepatosplenic candidiasis, pulmonary aspergillosis |
| Bronchoalveolar lavage | As clinically indicated | Respiratory symptoms, abnormal imaging | For fungal, viral, and Pneumocystis jirovecii |
Risk Stratification
- ▸MASCC score ≥21 = low-risk; <21 = high-risk
- ▸PCT + IL-10 combination predicts bacteremia with high accuracy in children
Use MASCC score: low-risk ≥21, high-risk <21. Sensitivity 83.5%, specificity 57.3% [6]B3b. Low-risk patients have lower ICU (0.4% vs 32.7%) and mortality (0.9% vs 16.8%) [6]B3b. Modified cut-off <17 for mortality prediction (sensitivity 83.6%, specificity 94.1%) [41]B3b. Biomarker combination: procalcitonin ≥0.425 ng/ml + IL-10 ≥4.37 pg/ml predicts bacteremia with 100% sensitivity, 89% specificity in children [37]B2b. Criteria for outpatient management: MASCC ≥21, no sepsis, no focal infection, adequate oral intake, reliable follow-up. Pearl: Combined procalcitonin (≥0.425 ng/ml) and IL-10 (≥4.37 pg/ml) at presentation can predict bacteraemia with 100% sensitivity and 89% specificity in children with febrile neutropenia, complementing clinical risk assessment.
| Study | Population | N | Sensitivity | Specificity | Key Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rivest et al. 2026 [6]B3b | Solid tumors, FN | 329 | 83.5% (77.8-88.2%) | 57.3% (47.8-66.4%) | Low-risk: 0.4% ICU, 0.9% mortality |
| Nadir et al. 2025 [41]B3b | Hospitalized FN, mixed | 354 | 83.6% (cut-off <17) | 94.1% (cut-off <17) | 30-day mortality 25.1% |
| Bhardwaj et al. 2021 [39]B3b | Hospitalized FN | 193 | Not reported | Not reported | Low-risk: 33% less ICU, 19% less death |
Empiric Antibiotic Therapy
- ▸Monotherapy with antipseudomonal β-lactam within 60 min for high-risk
- ▸Early de-escalation after 48-72h afebrile reduces mortality
High-risk: start antipseudomonal β-lactam monotherapy (cefepime 2g IV q8h, piperacillin/tazobactam 4.5g IV q6h, or meropenem 1g IV q8h) within 60 minutes. Add vancomycin if catheter-related infection, skin/soft tissue infection, severe pneumonia, or high MRSA prevalence. Dual therapy with aminoglycoside reserved for septic shock or suspected resistant gram-negative. Low-risk: oral levofloxacin 500mg PO q24h or ciprofloxacin + amoxicillin-clavulanate. Duration: early de-escalation after 48-72h if afebrile and stable (ECIL approach) reduces mortality (OR 0.20) [18]A1a. Extended infusion (3-4h) not superior in BEATLE trial [33]A1b. Pearl: For high-risk febrile neutropenia, initiate empiric monotherapy with an antipseudomonal β-lactam (cefepime, piperacillin/tazobactam, or meropenem) within 60 minutes; in hemodynamically stable patients who are afebrile for ≥48 hours, consider early de-escalation or discontinuation regardless of neutrophil count, as this strategy is associated with reduced mortality without increased adverse events.
| Regimen | Indication | Dosing (adult) | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cefepime monotherapy | High-risk, no MRSA suspicion | 2 g IV q8h | Meta-analysis: no difference vs piperacillin/tazobactam (RR 1.02) [31]A1a |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam monotherapy | High-risk, no MRSA suspicion | 4.5 g IV q6h | Success rate 74.8% in pediatric RCT [15]A1b |
| Meropenem monotherapy | High-risk, especially if prior β-lactam allergy | 1 g IV q8h | Success rate 74.9% in pediatric RCT [15]A1b |
| Aminoglycoside + antipseudomonal β-lactam | Septic shock, suspected resistant gram-negative | Gentamicin 5-7 mg/kg IV q24h | Reserved for resistant settings [44]A1c |
| Vancomycin added to β-lactam | Catheter infection, skin/soft tissue, severe pneumonia | 15-20 mg/kg IV q12h | Discontinue after 48 h if cultures negative [44]A1c |
| Oral levofloxacin | Low-risk, stable | 500 mg PO q24h | Cost-saving vs amoxicillin-clavulanate/ciprofloxacin [38]A1b |
| Oral ciprofloxacin + amoxicillin-clavulanate | Low-risk, stable | 750 mg PO q12h + 875/125 mg PO q12h | Alternative oral regimen [44]A1c |
Modification of Therapy
- ▸Stop antibiotics after 72h afebrile regardless of ANC (How Long study)
- ▸Early de-escalation within 3 days reduces mortality (OR 0.14)
If cultures negative at 48-72h and patient stable and afebrile, de-escalate: narrow to ceftriaxone, switch to prophylactic fluoroquinolones, or stop all antibiotics. Early de-escalation within 3 days reduces mortality (OR 0.14) [18]A1a. How Long study: stopping antibiotics after 72h apyrexia regardless of ANC gives more antibiotic-free days without excess mortality [45]A1b. Low-risk patients can switch to oral therapy (levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin + amoxicillin-clavulanate) with failure rate 10.5% [47]B2a. Broaden if persistent fever, clinical deterioration, or resistant organism. PET-CT for persistent fever increases antimicrobial rationalization (82% vs 65%) [46]A1b. Pearl: De-escalate or stop empiric antibiotics after 72 hours of apyrexia and clinical stability, regardless of neutrophil count; this improves outcomes and reduces antimicrobial resistance without increasing mortality (How Long study, meta-analysis [18]A1a[45]A1b).
| Strategy | Population | Evidence | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|
| De-escalation after 72h afebrile, regardless of ANC | High-risk adults | Level 1b [45]A1b | More antibiotic-free days, no excess mortality |
| Early de-escalation within 3 days | Adults | Level 1a [18]A1a | Reduced mortality (OR 0.14, 0.03-0.66) |
| Oral switch in low-risk | Adults and children | Level 2a [47]B2a | Failure rate 10.5%, safe |
| PET-CT for persistent fever | High-risk adults | Level 1b [46]A1b | Increased antimicrobial rationalization (82% vs 65%) |
Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy
- ▸Start echinocandin empirically for persistent fever >72-96h
- ▸Pre-emptive strategy with biomarkers reduces antifungal use
Persistent fever >72-96h despite broad-spectrum antibiotics raises concern for invasive fungal infection (IFI). Risk factors: prolonged neutropenia >7 days, AML, allo-HCT, corticosteroids. Diagnostic workup: serum galactomannan (sensitivity ~60-70%), β-D-glucan, CT chest (halo sign, air crescent). Empiric antifungal: echinocandin preferred (caspofungin 70mg/50mg or micafungin 150mg IV daily). Echinocandins reduce mortality vs non-echinocandins (RR 0.70) [57]A1a. Pre-emptive strategy (biomarker-guided) reduces antifungal use without increasing mortality (CEDMIC trial) [54]A1b. Pediatric guideline conditionally recommends pre-emptive therapy in high-risk patients not on antimold prophylaxis [50]A1c. Pearl: In patients with persistent fever beyond 72-96 hours, initiate an echinocandin (caspofungin 70 mg/50 mg or micafungin 150 mg daily) while awaiting serum galactomannan and CT chest; a pre-emptive strategy using biomarker screening can reduce antifungal overuse without increasing mortality, particularly in high-risk patients receiving antimold prophylaxis [50]A1c[54]A1b[57]A1a.
| Drug | Dose | Key Evidence | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Micafungin | 150 mg IV daily | Noninferior to LAmB; used in D-index-guided strategy (CEDMIC trial) [54]A1b (1b) | Effective in high-risk patients [52]B2b (2b) |
| Liposomal amphotericin B (LAmB) | 3 mg/kg IV daily | Standard comparator; response rate 32.7% in one trial [53]A1b (1b) | Higher nephrotoxicity and hypokalemia |
| Voriconazole | 6 mg/kg IV q12h loading, then 4 mg/kg q12h | Preferred for suspected aspergillosis; not studied in placebo-controlled RCT for empiric therapy | Requires therapeutic drug monitoring |
Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies
- ▸Prophylactic G-CSF for FN risk ≥20%
- ▸Therapeutic G-CSF not routinely recommended
Prophylactic G-CSF: recommended for chemotherapy regimens with FN risk ≥20% [67]B2a. Primary prophylaxis reduces FN incidence (risk difference 0.22, p=0.04) [10]A1a. Therapeutic G-CSF: not routinely recommended; consider only in high-risk patients (prolonged neutropenia, pneumonia, hypotension, multiorgan dysfunction) [59]B2a. Antipyretic: acetaminophen 650mg PO q4-6h PRN; avoid NSAIDs. Fluid resuscitation: 30 mL/kg crystalloid for hypotension, target MAP ≥65. Infection control: hand hygiene; protective isolation for ANC <100/μL expected >7 days; outpatient management for low-risk (MASCC ≥21) with oral antibiotics. Pearl: For therapeutic G‑CSF, the evidence does not support routine use; reserve it for high-risk patients with complicated neutropenic fever (e.g., pneumonia, hypotension, prolonged neutropenia) where the potential benefit may outweigh the lack of proven mortality reduction [59]B2a.
| Regimen / Setting | Recommendation | Strength | Key Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FN risk ≥20% (any regimen) | Primary prophylaxis with G-CSF | Strong | [58]A1c |
| Dose-dense breast cancer (with pegfilgrastim) | Primary prophylaxis | Strong (reduces FN, maintains survival) | [9]A1a |
| Dose-dense MVAC (urothelial cancer) | Primary prophylaxis | Weak | [13]D5 |
| Colorectal cancer chemotherapy | Primary prophylaxis not recommended | Strong (no benefit) | [12]B2a |
| Established FN (therapeutic) | Not routinely indicated; consider only in high-risk | Weak against | [59]B2a |
Special Populations
- ▸Pediatric adolescents have lower antibiotic efficacy (82% vs 94%)
- ▸Elderly benefit from early de-escalation (OR 0.42)
Pediatrics: Fluoroquinolone prophylaxis during induction for ALL reduces FN (46.1% vs 64.9%, OR 0.44) [17]B2a. Empiric monotherapy: meropenem 120 mg/kg/day or piperacillin/tazobactam 360 mg/kg/day as 2h infusions; success rates ~75% [15]A1b. Adolescents ≥16 years have lower efficacy (82% vs 94%, p<0.001) [15]A1b. Elderly: Early de-escalation within 2-3 days reduces mortality (OR 0.42) [18]A1a. Renal dosing needed. Hematologic malignancy/HSCT: Gram-negative BSIs 56.7%, carbapenem resistance 20.2% [24]B3b; early de-escalation reduces mortality (OR 0.20) [18]A1a. Catheter-related infections: Paired blood cultures; remove catheter for S. aureus, Pseudomonas, Candida, or persistent bacteremia >72h. Pearl: In children with febrile neutropenia, adolescents ≥16 years have lower antibiotic efficacy (82% vs 94%) and may benefit from earlier escalation to second-line therapy; in elderly patients, early de-escalation (within 2-3 days) reduces mortality (OR 0.42).
Prognosis and Outcomes
- ▸Mortality 2-3% overall; 34% SREs in severe disease
- ▸Early de-escalation reduces mortality (OR 0.20)
Overall mortality in pediatric FN is 2-3% [32]B2a. Safety-relevant events (SREs: bacteremia, ICU, death) occur in 17% of all episodes, 34% in severe disease [32]B2a. Early de-escalation of antibiotics reduces mortality (OR 0.20) [18]A1a; benefit strongest in patients >55 years (OR 0.42) [18]A1a. Risk factors for poor outcome: severe disease at presentation, weight loss ≥5% (OR 4.49) [14]B3b, prolonged neutropenia >14 days, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, radiation esophagitis grade ≥2. Complications: septic shock, ICU admission (14.5% of severe episodes), invasive fungal infections. FN episodes often lead to chemotherapy dose delays/reductions. Pearl: In pediatric FN, the strongest predictor of a safety-relevant event is severe disease at presentation, mortality is <3% overall but primarily clusters in this group; early de-escalation of antibiotics before hematopoietic recovery, particularly in older patients, may reduce mortality without increasing complications.
| Factor | Good Prognosis | Poor Prognosis |
|---|---|---|
| Disease severity at presentation | Clinically stable, no sepsis | Severe sepsis, reduced clinical condition, high triage [32]B2a |
| Age | Younger (<55 years) | Older (>55 years) [18]A1a |
| Duration of neutropenia | <7 days | >14 days [18]A1a |
| Pathogen | Gram-positive cocci (viridans group streptococci) | Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae [18]A1a |
| Weight trajectory | Stable weight | ≥5% weight loss during treatment [14]B3b |
| Antibiotic strategy | Early de-escalation (before recovery) | Continued broad-spectrum until recovery [18]A1a |
Prevention and Prophylaxis
- ▸G-CSF prophylaxis for FN risk >20% (NNT=5); levofloxacin for myeloma (NNT=13) and pediatric ALL (NNT=6)
- ▸G-CSF increases risk of secondary AML/MDS (NNH=213)
Antibiotic prophylaxis: Levofloxacin 500mg PO daily for 12 weeks reduces first febrile episode or death in multiple myeloma (NNT=13) [63]A1b. In pediatric ALL induction, fluoroquinolone prophylaxis reduces FN (NNT=6) [17]B2a. G-CSF prophylaxis: Recommended for regimens with FN risk >20% [67]B2a. Reduces FN incidence from 27.6% to 5.0% (NNT=5) [67]B2a. Also reduces all-cause mortality (RR 0.92) but increases risk of secondary AML/MDS (absolute increase 0.47%, NNH=213) [68]A1a. Patient education: Report fever immediately, hand hygiene, avoid sick contacts. Pearl: Primary prophylaxis with G‑CSF is indicated for chemotherapy regimens with FN risk >20%, reducing FN incidence from 27.6% to 5.0% (NNT=5) [67]B2a. Antibiotic prophylaxis with levofloxacin reduces FN in myeloma (NNT=13) and pediatric ALL (NNT=6) [63]A1b[17]B2a. Balance benefits against the small increased risk of secondary malignancies with G‑CSF (NNH=213) [68]A1a.
| Strategy | Population | Regimen | Absolute Risk Reduction | NNT | Key Safety Concern | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antibiotic prophylaxis | Newly diagnosed myeloma | Levofloxacin 500 mg PO daily × 12 weeks | 8% (27% → 19%) | 13 | Tendonitis (1%) | [63]A1b |
| Antibiotic prophylaxis | Pediatric ALL induction | Fluoroquinolone (levofloxacin or ciprofloxacin) | 18.8% (64.9% → 46.1%) | 6 | No significant increase in C. difficile or resistant colonization | [17]B2a |
| G-CSF prophylaxis | TCH(P) in HER2+ breast cancer | G-CSF (dose per local protocol) | 22.6% (27.6% → 5.0%) | 5 | Bone pain, secondary AML/MDS | [67]B2a |
Guidelines and Resources
- ▸Pediatric 2023 guideline allows early antibiotic stop at 48h
- ▸AGIHO 2026 extends G-CSF recommendations to immunotherapy
Key guidelines: 2023 Pediatric FN Guideline [50]A1c supports stopping antibiotics at 48h in low-risk, culture-negative, afebrile patients even without marrow recovery. ASCO 2015 [69]A1c recommends prophylactic G-CSF for FN risk ≥20%. ECIL-9 [70]A1c alerts that targeted therapies as monotherapy have low infection risk, but combinations (e.g., venetoclax+HMA) need vigilance. NCCN 2013 [71]A1c and AGIHO 2026 [58]A1c provide G-CSF recommendations, with AGIHO extending to immunotherapy. MASCC 2020 [72]D5 supports outpatient management for low-risk FN. Practice-changing updates: Early antibiotic discontinuation in low-risk children; G-CSF for immunotherapy. Pearl: When selecting a guideline to follow, note that the pediatric 2023 update [50]A1c supports stopping antibiotics at 48 h in low‑risk, culture‑negative, afebrile patients even without marrow recovery, a significant departure from adult practice, and that the AGIHO 2026 guideline [58]A1c now provides specific G‑CSF recommendations for immunotherapy, a rapidly expanding area not covered by older guidelines.
| Guideline | Organization | Year | Key Recommendations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Pediatric Patients [50]A1c | International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel | 2023 | Discontinue empiric antibacterials at 48 h if low‑risk, afebrile, cultures negative; pre‑emptive antifungal for high‑risk without antimold prophylaxis; start empiric antibacterials ASAP in unstable patients. |
| Use of WBC Growth Factors [69]A1c | ASCO | 2015 | Prophylactic G‑CSF at ≥20% FN risk; primary prophylaxis for high‑risk patients; dose‑dense regimens only in trials or with efficacy data. |
| Infectious Complications of Targeted Drugs [70]A1c | ECIL‑9 | 2022 | Most monotherapies low risk; caution with combination therapy (venetoclax‑HMA, gemtuzumab‑cytotoxic, midostaurin‑chemo); drug‑drug interaction alerts. |
| Myeloid Growth Factors [71]A1c | NCCN | 2013 | Prophylactic filgrastim/pegfilgrastim for high‑risk; timing of pegfilgrastim; tbo‑filgrastim; role in HCT. |
| MASCC Position Paper on FN in COVID‑19 [72]D5 | MASCC | 2020 | Outpatient low‑risk FN safe; MASCC score reasonable for COVID‑19; telemedicine and ambulatory care. |
| AGIHO Guideline on G‑CSF Prophylaxis [58]A1c | AGIHO/DGHO | 2026 | Updated recommendations for G‑CSF in immunotherapy; most 2014 recommendations confirmed; risk stratification per ESCMID. |
References
- [1]
Grosso D, Leiby B, Wilde L et al.. “A Prospective, Randomized Trial Examining the Use of G-CSF Versus No G-CSF in Patients Post-Autologous Transplantation.” Transplantation and cellular therapy (2022). PMID: 36167307 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition and Classification - [2]
Sherban A, Fredman D, Shimony S et al.. “Safety and efficacy of FLAG-Ida-based therapy combined with venetoclax for the treatment for newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory patients with AML - A systematic review.” Leukemia research (2023). PMID: 37598660 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Definition and Classification - [3]
Rainer TH, Lam RPK, Tsang TC et al.. “Antibiotic stewardship in suspected neutropenic fever (ASTERIC trial): a multicentre, type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation, stepped-wedge, randomised controlled trial study protocol.” BMJ open (2025). PMID: 41290295 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Definition and Classification, Modification of Therapy - [4]
Jung HA, Kim M, Kim HS et al.. “A Phase 2 Study of Palbociclib for Recurrent or Refractory Advanced Thymic Epithelial Tumors (KCSG LU17-21).” Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (2022). PMID: 36307042 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Definition and Classification - [5]
Xu Y, Huang L, Wang J et al.. “Exploring optimal administration timing of pegylated recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for chemotherapy-induced neutropenia in early breast cancer treated with pharmorubicin and endoxan: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.” BMC cancer (2024). PMID: 39533204 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Definition and Classification - [6]
Rivest CE, Ben Abderrazik FE, Côté-Marcoux MA et al.. “Correlation between MASCC score and the evolution of febrile neutropenia in patients with solid tumors: a retrospective study.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2026). PMID: 41606351 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Definition and Classification, Risk Stratification - [7]
Wang CY, Vouri SM, Park H et al.. “Comparative effectiveness of pegfilgrastim biosimilars vs originator for prevention of febrile neutropenia: A retrospective cohort study.” Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy (2023). PMID: 36705287 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Definition and Classification - [8]
Zhao W, Zhou Y, Wang X et al.. “Mecapegfilgrastim for prophylaxis of febrile neutropenia in children and adolescents with rhabdomyosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma: a prospective, single-arm, pilot study.” BMC cancer (2024). PMID: 39148050 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Definition and Classification - [9]
Yokoe T, Yoshinami T, Nozawa K et al.. “Efficacy and safety of dose-dense chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer under prophylactic pegfilgrastim administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis from clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.” International journal of clinical oncology (2025). PMID: 39934515 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Diagnostic Workup, Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies - [10]
Nozawa K, Ozaki Y, Yoshinami T et al.. “Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis with G-CSF during chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.” International journal of clinical oncology (2024). PMID: 38900215 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies, Prevention and Prophylaxis - [11]
Yoshinami T, Nozawa K, Yokoe T et al.. “Comparison between a single dose of PEG G-CSF and multiple doses of non-PEG G-CSF: a systematic review and meta-analysis from Clinical Practice Guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022.” International journal of clinical oncology (2024). PMID: 38649648 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies - [12]
Ito M, Okumura Y, Nio K et al.. “Effectiveness of G-CSF in chemotherapy for digestive system tumors: a systematic review of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022 delineated by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.” International journal of clinical oncology (2024). PMID: 38578596 ↗
L2GUIDELINECited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies - [13]
Uchino K, Tamura S, Kimura S et al.. “Effectiveness and safety of primary prophylaxis of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor during dose-dense chemotherapy for urothelial cancer: Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Use of G-CSF 2022.” International journal of clinical oncology (2024). PMID: 38517658 ↗
L5GUIDELINECited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies - [14]
Saito Y, Kawarade M, Makihara RA et al.. “Impact of weight loss on adverse events during chemoradiotherapy in patients with small cell lung cancer: a retrospective study.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2026). PMID: 42364037 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Prognosis and Outcomes - [15]
Kobayashi R, Sano H, Ishigaki R et al.. “Comparison of 2-hour drip infusions of meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for febrile neutropenia in pediatric patients.” Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy (2025). PMID: 40626871 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors, Diagnostic Workup, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Special Populations - [16]
Kumanishi R, Taniguchi H, Nakazawa T et al.. “Optimal Primary Prophylaxis for Febrile Neutropenia During Neoadjuvant Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil Plus Docetaxel for Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Cancer medicine (2025). PMID: 40275604 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Epidemiology and Risk Factors - [17]
Landivar MC, Hartmann Rost I, Carvalho Kilson A et al.. “Efficacy of fluoroquinolone prophylaxis during induction phase in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” European journal of pediatrics (2026). PMID: 42065773 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology, Diagnostic Workup, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Special Populations, Prognosis and Outcomes, Prevention and Prophylaxis - [18]
Chen Y-H, Sun AY-E, Narain K et al.. “Efficacy and safety of early antibiotic de-escalation in febrile neutropenia for patients with hematologic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy (2025). PMID: 40079575 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Modification of Therapy, Special Populations, Prognosis and Outcomes - [19]
Chaftari AM, Dagher H, Hachem R et al.. “A randomized non-inferiority study comparing imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam with standard-of-care Gram-negative coverage in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.” The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy (2024). PMID: 39092963 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology - [20]
Ghaffary S, Javidnia A, Beheshtirouy S et al.. “Comparison of global decolonization efficacy with mupirocin nasal drop and chlorhexidine mouthwash in acute leukemia patients: randomized clinical trial.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2023). PMID: 38110726 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology - [21]
Bergas A, Lopez de Egea G, Albasanz-Puig A et al.. “Effectiveness of the BioFire FilmArray for the rapid detection of bloodstream infection in haematological patients with febrile neutropenia (the ONFIRE study): study protocol of a prospective, multicentre observational study at three reference university hospitals in Spain.” BMJ open (2025). PMID: 40499967 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology - [22]
Moortgat J, Boulanger C, Chatzis O. “Safety of reducing antibiotic use in children with febrile neutropenia: A systematic review.” Pediatric hematology and oncology (2022). PMID: 35465847 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology, Modification of Therapy - [23]
Tan X, Li Y, Xi J et al.. “Comparative efficacy and safety of antipseudomonal β-lactams for pediatric febrile neutropenia: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.” Medicine (2021). PMID: 34918626 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology - [24]
Tarhan MS, Özdemir YE, Çamber L et al.. “Evaluation of bloodstream infections in febrile neutropenic patients with hematological malignancy: a retrospective cohort study.” BMC infectious diseases (2026). PMID: 42056949 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Etiology and Pathophysiology, Special Populations - [25]
Haeusler GM, Carlesse F, Phillips RS. “An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive value of serum biomarkers in the assessment of fever during neutropenia in children with cancer.” The Pediatric infectious disease journal (2013). PMID: 23673421 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment - [26]
Furlanetto J, Eiermann W, Marmé F et al.. “Higher rate of severe toxicities in obese patients receiving dose-dense (dd) chemotherapy according to unadjusted body surface area: results of the prospectively randomized GAIN study.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2016). PMID: 27502721 ↗
L3RCTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment - [27]
Ueno M, Ikeda M, Morizane C et al.. “Nivolumab alone or in combination with cisplatin plus gemcitabine in Japanese patients with unresectable or recurrent biliary tract cancer: a non-randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 1 study.” The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology (2019). PMID: 31109808 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment - [28]
Sehouli J, Stengel D, Mustea A et al.. “Weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin (PC-W) for patients with primary advanced ovarian cancer: results of a multicenter phase-II study of the NOGGO.” Cancer chemotherapy and pharmacology (2007). PMID: 17393164 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment - [29]
Ying FLM, Ping MCY, Tong M et al.. “A cohort study on protocol-based nurse-led out-patient management of post-chemotherapy low-risk febrile neutropenia.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2018). PMID: 29556814 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment - [30]
Shibata Y, Miyahara Y, Sadaka Y et al.. “Evaluation of the effectiveness of caspofungin against febrile neutropenia and the factors related to the alteration in its plasma concentration.” Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy (2019). PMID: 31047782 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Clinical Presentation and Initial Assessment - [31]
Fernandes BLG, Joseph A, Andriazzi VH. “Piperacillin-tazobactam versus cefepime monotherapy in pediatric patients with febrile neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” European journal of pediatrics (2026). PMID: 42096109 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Workup, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Special Populations, Prognosis and Outcomes - [32]
Salomon AL, Ammann RA, Aftandilian C et al.. “Association of Time to Antibiotics With Outcome in Pediatric Patients Receiving Chemotherapy for Cancer With Fever in Neutropenia-An International Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.” Cancer medicine (2026). PMID: 41521162 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Workup, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Prognosis and Outcomes - [33]
Laporte-Amargos J, Carmona-Torre F, Huguet M et al.. “Efficacy of extended infusion of β-lactam antibiotics for the treatment of febrile neutropenia in haematologic patients (BEATLE): a randomized, multicentre, open-label, superiority clinical trial.” Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (2024). PMID: 39433124 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Diagnostic Workup, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Special Populations - [34]
Qin ST, Kong MY, Ling RY et al.. “A reappraisal of carbapenems dosing in febrile neutropenic patients.” Journal of global antimicrobial resistance (2025). PMID: 41130293 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Diagnostic Workup, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy - [35]
Liu M, Zou L, Zhang N et al.. “Pathological response and metabolites' prognostic role in HER2-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant pyrotinib, trastuzumab, nab-paclitaxel, and carboplatin: a single-arm phase II trial.” Breast cancer research : BCR (2025). PMID: 41152909 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Diagnostic Workup - [36]
Mahtani R, Crawford J, Flannery SM et al.. “Prophylactic pegfilgrastim to prevent febrile neutropenia among patients receiving biweekly (Q2W) chemotherapy regimens: a systematic review of efficacy, effectiveness and safety.” BMC cancer (2021). PMID: 34044798 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Risk Stratification - [37]
Doerflinger M, Haeusler GM, Li-Wai-Suen CSN et al.. “Procalcitonin and Interleukin-10 May Assist in Early Prediction of Bacteraemia in Children With Cancer and Febrile Neutropenia.” Frontiers in immunology (2021). PMID: 34093531 ↗
L2TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Risk Stratification - [38]
Khedr RA, Ali E, Elshafei ZA et al.. “Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Levofloxacin Versus Amoxicillin-Clavulanate/Ciprofloxacin for Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Febrile Neutropenia in Children With Cancer in Egypt.” JCO global oncology (2025). PMID: 40267379 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Risk Stratification, Empiric Antibiotic Therapy, Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies - [39]
Bhardwaj PV, Emmich M, Knee A et al.. “Use of MASCC score in the inpatient management of febrile neutropenia: a single-center retrospective study.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2021). PMID: 33761002 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Risk Stratification - [40]
Flett L, Abdelatif R, Baz SA et al.. “Biomarker Driven Antifungal Stewardship (BioDriveAFS) in acute leukaemia-a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to assess clinical and cost effectiveness: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.” Trials (2024). PMID: 38943201 ↗
L5TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Risk Stratification - [41]
Nadir Y, Kiran P, Erturk D et al.. “Determining the Cut-Off Value of the MASCC Score to Predict Mortality in Hospitalized Febrile Neutropenic Patients: A Decade-Long Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.” Oncology (2025). PMID: 40273896 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Risk Stratification - [42]
Zhu Y, Guo D, Kong X et al.. “A Risk-Prediction Nomogram for Neutropenia or Febrile Neutropenia after Etoposide-Based Chemotherapy in Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.” Pharmacology (2021). PMID: 34673655 ↗
L3COHORTCited in: Risk Stratification - [43]
Ito H, Okamura Y, Tomura Y et al.. “Effect of Antibiotics With Anaerobic Coverage on Graft-Versus-Host Disease in Patients Undergoing Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation Society (2025). PMID: 40298411 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Empiric Antibiotic Therapy - [44]
. “[Chinese guidelines for the clinical application of antibacterial drugs for febrile neutropenia (2026)].” Zhonghua xue ye xue za zhi = Zhonghua xueyexue zazhi (2026). PMID: 42161653 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Empiric Antibiotic Therapy - [45]
Aguilar-Guisado M, Espigado I, Martín-Peña A et al.. “Optimisation of empirical antimicrobial therapy in patients with haematological malignancies and febrile neutropenia (How Long study): an open-label, randomised, controlled phase 4 trial.” The Lancet. Haematology (2017). PMID: 29153975 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Modification of Therapy - [46]
Douglas A, Thursky K, Spelman T et al.. “[18F]FDG-PET-CT compared with CT for persistent or recurrent neutropenic fever in high-risk patients (PIPPIN): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.” The Lancet. Haematology (2022). PMID: 35777413 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Modification of Therapy - [47]
Morgan JE, Cleminson J, Atkin K et al.. “Systematic review of reduced therapy regimens for children with low risk febrile neutropenia.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2016). PMID: 26757936 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Modification of Therapy - [48]
Gould N, Sill MW, Mannel RS et al.. “A phase I study with an expanded cohort to assess the feasibility of intravenous paclitaxel, intraperitoneal carboplatin and intraperitoneal paclitaxel in patients with untreated ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study.” Gynecologic oncology (2011). PMID: 22155262 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Modification of Therapy - [49]
Cohen S, Roy J, Lachance S et al.. “Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation using single UM171-expanded cord blood: a single-arm, phase 1-2 safety and feasibility study.” The Lancet. Haematology (2019). PMID: 31704264 ↗
L4TRIAL_NONRANDOMCited in: Modification of Therapy - [50]
Lehrnbecher T, Robinson PD, Ammann RA et al.. “Guideline for the Management of Fever and Neutropenia in Pediatric Patients With Cancer and Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Recipients: 2023 Update.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2023). PMID: 36689694 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy, Guidelines and Resources - [51]
Lee CH, Lin C, Ho CL et al.. “Primary Fungal Prophylaxis in Hematological Malignancy: a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy (2018). PMID: 29866872 ↗
L1SR_MA_RCTCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [52]
Kimura SI, Kanda Y, Iino M et al.. “Efficacy and safety of micafungin in empiric and D-index-guided early antifungal therapy for febrile neutropenia; A subgroup analysis of the CEDMIC trial.” International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases (2020). PMID: 32891738 ↗
L2RCTCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [53]
Yoshida I, Saito AM, Tanaka S et al.. “Intravenous itraconazole compared with liposomal amphotericin B as empirical antifungal therapy in patients with neutropaenia and persistent fever.” Mycoses (2020). PMID: 32391919 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [54]
Kanda Y, Kimura SI, Iino M et al.. “D-Index-Guided Early Antifungal Therapy Versus Empiric Antifungal Therapy for Persistent Febrile Neutropenia: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2020). PMID: 31977270 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [55]
Santolaya ME, Alvarez AM, Acuña M et al.. “Efficacy of pre-emptive versus empirical antifungal therapy in children with cancer and high-risk febrile neutropenia: a randomized clinical trial.” The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy (2018). PMID: 30010931 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [56]
Sachdeva M, Malik M, Pradhan P et al.. “Systematic review on efficacy and safety of empirical versus pre-emptive antifungal therapy among children with febrile neutropenia reveals paucity of data.” Mycoses (2024). PMID: 38606896 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [57]
Yamashita C, Takesue Y, Matsumoto K et al.. “Echinocandins versus non-echinocandins for empirical antifungal therapy in patients with hematological disease with febrile neutropenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy (2020). PMID: 32171659 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Persistent Fever and Antifungal Therapy - [58]
Sandherr M, Schalk E, Heinz WJ et al.. “Evidence-based AGIHO guideline update on prophylaxis of infectious complications with granulocyte-stimulating factors (G-CSF) for the treatment of adult patients with cancer.” European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) (2026). PMID: 41570611 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies, Guidelines and Resources - [59]
Tsuchihashi K, Ito M, Okumura Y et al.. “Therapeutic use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with febrile neutropenia: a comprehensive systematic review for clinical practice guidelines for the use of G-CSF 2022 from the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.” International journal of clinical oncology (2024). PMID: 38696053 ↗
L2GUIDELINECited in: Supportive Care and Adjunctive Therapies - [60]
Gichemi A, Wijnen NE, Kormelink E et al.. “CARE study: prospective cohort study on supportive care among paediatric oncology patients in western Kenya-a study protocol.” BMJ open (2026). PMID: 42091146 ↗
L2COHORTCited in: Special Populations, Prognosis and Outcomes - [61]
Kurtipek FB, Yozgat AK, Gökçek E et al.. “Diagnostic performance of the Sepsis qPCR MX-30® panel compared with conventional blood culture in pediatric febrile neutropenia: a single-center retrospective study.” BMC infectious diseases (2026). PMID: 42062936 ↗
L4COHORTCited in: Special Populations, Prognosis and Outcomes - [62]
Gretland J, Sjømæling S, Mosevoll KA et al.. “Timing of antibiotic initiation in sepsis and neutropenic fever.” Frontiers in medicine (2025). PMID: 40963571 ↗
L5SR_OBSCited in: Prognosis and Outcomes - [63]
Drayson MT, Bowcock S, Planche T et al.. “Levofloxacin prophylaxis in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma (TEAMM): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial.” The Lancet. Oncology (2019). PMID: 31668592 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prevention and Prophylaxis - [64]
Clemons M, Mazzarello S, Hilton J et al.. “Feasibility of using a pragmatic trials model to compare two primary febrile neutropenia prophylaxis regimens (ciprofloxacin versus G-CSF) in patients receiving docetaxel-cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for breast cancer (REaCT-TC).” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2018). PMID: 30099602 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prevention and Prophylaxis - [65]
Ponraj M, Dubashi B, Harish BH et al.. “Cefepime vs. cefoperazone/sulbactam in combination with amikacin as empirical antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenia.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2018). PMID: 29774477 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prevention and Prophylaxis - [66]
Dufrayer MC, Rechenmacher C, Meneses CF et al.. “Safety of levofloxacin as an antibiotic prophylaxis in the induction phase of children newly diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: an interim analysis of a randomized, open-label trial in Brazil.” The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (2023). PMID: 36750202 ↗
L1RCTCited in: Prevention and Prophylaxis - [67]
Van Belle H, Hurvitz SA, Gilbar PJ et al.. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of febrile neutropenia risk with TCH(P) in HER2-positive breast cancer.” Breast cancer research and treatment (2021). PMID: 34533681 ↗
L2SR_OBSCited in: Prevention and Prophylaxis - [68]
Lyman GH, Yau L, Nakov R et al.. “Overall survival and risk of second malignancies with cancer chemotherapy and G-CSF support.” Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology (2018). PMID: 30099478 ↗
L1SR_OBSCited in: Prevention and Prophylaxis - [69]
Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH et al.. “Recommendations for the Use of WBC Growth Factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update.” Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (2015). PMID: 26169616 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [70]
Maschmeyer G, Bullinger L, Garcia-Vidal C et al.. “Infectious complications of targeted drugs and biotherapies in acute leukemia. Clinical practice guidelines by the European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL), a joint venture of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the International Immunocompromised Host Society (ICHS) and the European Leukemia Net (ELN).” Leukemia (2022). PMID: 35368047 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [71]
Crawford J, Armitage J, Balducci L et al.. “Myeloid growth factors.” Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN (2013). PMID: 24142827 ↗
L1GUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources - [72]
Cooksley T, Font C, Scotte F et al.. “Emerging challenges in the evaluation of fever in cancer patients at risk of febrile neutropenia in the era of COVID-19: a MASCC position paper.” Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (2020). PMID: 33230644 ↗
L5GUIDELINECited in: Guidelines and Resources