PURPOSE: We aimed to validate the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index, and compare it with the Talcott model and artificial neural network (ANN) in predicting the outcome of febrile neutropenia in a Chinese population. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult cancer patients who developed febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy and risk classified them according to MASCC score and Talcott model. ANN models were constructed and temporally validated in prospectively collected cohorts. RESULTS: From October 2005 to February 2008, 227 consecutive patients were enrolled. Serious medical complications occurred in 22% of patients and 4% died. The positive predictive value of low risk prediction was 86% (95% CI = 81-90%) for MASCC score ≥ 21, 84% (79-89%) for Talcott model, and 85% (78-93%) for the best ANN model. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and misclassification rate were 81%, 60%, 52%, and 24%, respectively, for MASCC score ≥ 21; and 50%, 72%, 33%, and 44%, respectively, for Talcott model; and 84%, 60%, 58%, and 22%, respectively, for ANN model. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.808 (95% CI = 0.717-0.899) for MASCC, 0.573 (0.455-0.691) for Talcott, and 0.737 (0.633-0.841) for ANN model. In the low risk group identified by MASCC score ≥ 21 (70% of all patients), 12.5% developed complications and 1.9% died, compared with 43.3%, and 9.0%, respectively, in the high risk group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The MASCC risk index is prospectively validated in a Chinese population. It demonstrates a better overall performance than the Talcott model and is equivalent to ANN model.
PURPOSE: We aimed to validate the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) risk index, and compare it with the Talcott model and artificial neural network (ANN) in predicting the outcome of febrile neutropenia in a Chinese population. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled adult cancerpatients who developed febrile neutropenia after chemotherapy and risk classified them according to MASCC score and Talcott model. ANN models were constructed and temporally validated in prospectively collected cohorts. RESULTS: From October 2005 to February 2008, 227 consecutive patients were enrolled. Serious medical complications occurred in 22% of patients and 4% died. The positive predictive value of low risk prediction was 86% (95% CI = 81-90%) for MASCC score ≥ 21, 84% (79-89%) for Talcott model, and 85% (78-93%) for the best ANN model. The sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and misclassification rate were 81%, 60%, 52%, and 24%, respectively, for MASCC score ≥ 21; and 50%, 72%, 33%, and 44%, respectively, for Talcott model; and 84%, 60%, 58%, and 22%, respectively, for ANN model. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve was 0.808 (95% CI = 0.717-0.899) for MASCC, 0.573 (0.455-0.691) for Talcott, and 0.737 (0.633-0.841) for ANN model. In the low risk group identified by MASCC score ≥ 21 (70% of all patients), 12.5% developed complications and 1.9% died, compared with 43.3%, and 9.0%, respectively, in the high risk group (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The MASCC risk index is prospectively validated in a Chinese population. It demonstrates a better overall performance than the Talcott model and is equivalent to ANN model.
Authors: C S M Oude Nijhuis; S M G J Daenen; E Vellenga; W T A van der Graaf; J A Gietema; H J M Groen; W A Kamps; Eveline S J M de Bont Journal: Crit Rev Oncol Hematol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.312
Authors: Terence C W Poon; Tai-Tung Yip; Anthony T C Chan; Christine Yip; Victor Yip; Tony S K Mok; Conrad C Y Lee; Thomas W T Leung; Stephen K W Ho; Philip J Johnson Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: J Klastersky; M Paesmans; E B Rubenstein; M Boyer; L Elting; R Feld; J Gallagher; J Herrstedt; B Rapoport; K Rolston; J Talcott Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ananya Das; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Gregory S Cooper; Amitabh Chak; Michael V Sivak; Judith A Gonet; Richard C K Wong Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-10-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Camille C Gunderson; Britt K Erickson; Ivy Wilkinson-Ryan; Sara K Vesely; Charles A Leath; Paola A Gehrig; Kathleen N Moore Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: A Carmona-Bayonas; P Jiménez-Fonseca; J Virizuela Echaburu; M Sánchez Cánovas; F Ayala de la Peña Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Fiona Lim Mei Ying; Maria Choy Yin Ping; Macy Tong; Elaine Yim Pik Yan; Tracy Lui Siu Yee; Lam Yuk Ting; Anita Lo Wing Sim; Lui Cheuk Yu; Bosco Lam Hoi Shiu; Ashley Cheng Chi Kin Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jinn-Tsong Tsai; Ming-Feng Hou; Yao-Mei Chen; Thomas T H Wan; Hao-Yun Kao; Hon-Yi Shi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-12-01 Impact factor: 3.603