c-D-index at day 11 can predict febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia.

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) often requires long-term intensive chemotherapy for its cure. During chemotherapy, the patient always experiences neutropenia with readings below 500 cells/μL; this is often accompanied by pyrexia with a temperature of more than 101°F. This combination of neutropenia and fever is called febrile neutropenia (FN). A tool to sum up the daily severity of a patient's neutropenia, the "D-index," has been validated in some specific clinical settings. In this study, we examined whether the D-index is a useful predictor of the onset of FN. We recruited consecutive patients treated with induction and consolidation chemotherapy for newly diagnosed AML. We gathered all the FN events and their clinical background data retrospectively. Patients' background, such as pre-existing conditions and disease status before the treatment, were analyzed using multivariate methods. All FN events during chemotherapy were evaluated for infection focus and causative organism. A total cohort of 51 cases (25 women, 26 men; median age 51 years, range 18-74) was analyzed. They displayed 171 neutropenic events (115 FN and 56 afebrile episodes) during chemotherapy, and complete neutropenic events were used in this study. Sensitivity and specificity analysis showed that the most useful cutoff value to predict the onset of FN was a cumulative D-index at day 11 (c-D11-index) of 718. The cumulative incidence of FN during chemotherapy was significantly higher in the group with c-D11-index ≥710 (80%) than in the group with c-D11-index <710 (39%) (P < 0.0001). Through multivariate analysis, the presence of diabetes mellitus and the c-D11-index were extracted as contributing factors to the onset of FN (P = 0.0087 and 0.0002, respectively). In conclusion, we can predict that AML patients receiving chemotherapy will experience the complication of FN when the c-D-index at day 11 is >710, with an odds ratio of 2.1.

Background

Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been identified as a leading hematological malignancy, with an onset prevalence of 3.7 per 100,000 persons per year [1]. Among the various types of cancers, acute leukemia—including AML—requires the most intensive chemotherapy. A chemotherapy protocol for AML consists of induction and consolidation chemotherapy [2]. These intensified chemotherapy regimens guide a substantial proportion of the population to cure status through disease remission. Unfortunately, severe neutropenia will occur during such intensive chemotherapy, with levels five times less than the normal range of neutrocytes (≤500 cells/μL), which is grade 4 neutropenia as defined by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0.

Thus, neutropenia followed by intensified chemotherapy has been identified to be a leading risk factor for opportunistic infection [3]. Concomitance of severe neutropenia (≤500 cells/μL) with high fever (≥101°F) is called febrile neutropenia (FN) by the definition of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) [4]. FN might cause severe infection, particularly in patients receiving chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies [5]. In half of the FN episodes, the infectious pathogens remain unclear, even though adequate and routine workup for infection is applied [5, 6]. Portugal et al. originally reported the D-index as a quantitative evaluation of the severity of a patient’s neutropenia [7]. The utility of the D-indices has been investigated in some specific clinical situations [7-11]. Recent clinical trials were specifically performed for fungal infections [12-16], and the D-indices were found to be useful in guiding clinical decisions regarding antifungal therapy [14, 16].

A great deal of evidence has accumulated on the relevance of the D-index for predicting invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in patients with hematologic malignancies. However, these patients are predisposed to FN; hence, an index that predicts only pulmonary infection [9, 10] is deemed not ideal. Previously, we have reported positive relation between the c-D-index and prolonged neutropenia in an adult population [17]. While the D-index did not predict the onset and severity of FN, the c-D-index was associated with prolonged FN. In the previous study, we investigated whether c-D-index can predict FN during chemotherapy. It, however, could not achieve enough power to detect a significant correlation for predicting FN using the c-D-index. Thus, in this present study, we extended the number of adult patients included in the statistical analysis.

Subjects and methods

Patient selection

We recruited consecutive all AML patients treated in our hospital between November 1998 and December 2018. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) aged from 18 to 74 years old, (ii) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (PS) 0–2, and (iii) hematologic diagnosis of de novo AML. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) poor PS (≥3) at the time of diagnosis, (ii) acute promyelocytic leukemia (i.e., French–American–British [FAB] classification M3), and (iii) poor general condition where the ability to tolerate intensive chemotherapy was in question.

All patients were basically treated with Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group (JALSG) 97 [18] or JALSG 201 [19] protocol regimens, as the standard therapy used in our country in practice. We have used JALSG disease risk as the risk factor at the onset of AML [18].

Treatment regimens

The induction chemotherapy regimen consisted of 12mg/m2 idarubicin daily for 3 days or 50mg/m2 daunorubicin (DNR) daily for 5 days, combined with 100mg/m2 Ara-C daily for 7 days. The consolidation chemotherapy regimen consisted of a total of three cycles of high-dose Ara-C at 2g/m2 twice a day for 5 days. Alternatively, we used four courses of consolidation therapy as follows:

First consolidation: Ara-C 200mg/m2 daily for 5 days and mitoxantrone 7mg/m2 for 3 days.

Second consolidation: Ara-C 200mg/m2 daily for 5 days and DNR 50mg/m2 daily for 3 days.

Third consolidation: Ara-C 200mg/m2 daily for 5 days and aclarubicin 20mg/m2 daily for 5 days.

Final consolidation: Ara-C 200mg/m2 daily for 5 days, etoposide 100mg/m2 daily for 5 days, vincristine 0.8mg/m2 on day 8, and vindesine 2mg/m2 on day 10.

Definition of FN and febrile episode

Body temperature was measured. FN was defined as fever ≥100°F (38.0°C) at the axilla with neutrophil count <500 cells/μL. A temperature of 100°F (38.0°C) at the axilla corresponds with a central temperature of 101°F (38.5°C) measured in the oral cavity. If a fever ≥100°F (38.0°C) was observed again after the body temperature had decreased to <99.5°F (37.5°C) for over 48hours, it was defined as a new FN event. We then collected, via chart review, all the FN events from the start of a patient’s induction chemotherapy (or first chemotherapy at our institute) to the end of the final consolidation therapy.

Definitions of the D-indices [4]

The indices investigated in this study are schematically illustrated in Fig 1. The D-index was calculated as the area between the neutrophil curve during grade 4 neutropenia and the line representing 500cells/μL. Accordingly, the D-index is noted to vary depending on the period of the calculation. The c-D-index was the cumulative D-index calculated from the start of grade 4 neutropenia to the onset of FN. If no FN occurred, the c-D-index was equal to the D-index. The c-D-index reflects an accumulation of neutropenia until FN (Fig 1) [4]. The total c-D-index was calculated using the period from the first chemotherapy to the onset of FN, whereas the total D-index was calculated using the period from the first chemotherapy to the final chemotherapy. These indices evaluated the additive effects of neutropenia, with the D-index providing a retrospective evaluation of the severity of neutropenia and the c-D-index offering a current evaluation of ongoing neutropenia. Further, the total D-index/total c-D-index is defined as the sum of the calculated overall D-indices (Fig 1) [4].

Fig 1

Definitions of the four indices investigated.

The D-index, total D-index, cumulative D-index (c-D-index), and total c-D-index are depicted on the neutrophil count curve for a patient undergoing induction therapy and three periods of consolidation therapy. FN, febrile neutropenia.

Diagnostic procedure and protocol for infectious diseases

An infectious disease was diagnosed according to the following criteria: when the causative organism (bacterium or fungus) was identified from clinical specimens collected aseptically; when a pathologic organism (bacterium or fungus) that could cause clinical manifestations was isolated; or when an infectious disease was strongly suspected from the patient’s clinical course and symptoms and was supported by certain serum markers of infection, such as β-D-glucan and procalcitonin. We then comprehensively categorized the patients’ clinical symptoms into six focuses of infection according to clinical manifestations and culture results: oral cavity (stomatitis, toothache, and gingivitis), gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain), respiratory tract (cough, sputum, dyspnea, and chest pain), skin (rash, swelling, flare, and painful skin, including in the device insertion area), bloodstream (blood culture positive but lacking in clinical manifestations), and unknown origin (blood culture negative and lacking in clinical manifestations or the coexistence of multiple clinical manifestations that would differentiate other diagnoses).

Statistical analysis

We used basic statistics to describe representative patient characteristics. A two-tailed paired Student’s t-test (for parametric analysis) or a Mann–Whitney U test (for nonparametric analysis) was used to compare values between groups. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was also performed to determine the cutoff value of the c-D-index at a given day after chemotherapy. We performed univariate analysis to establish explanatory factors for clinical outcomes, including FN onset. Multivariate analysis was used to identify the risk factors contributing to the onset of FN, including the D-index and the c-D-index as potential factors. In multivariate analyses, we have evaluated patient background as an independent variable and onset of FN as a dependent variable using the regression model. P-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Patient background data included:

Age (as a continuous variable)

Sex (male or female)

Chemotherapy regimen (anthracycline with cytarabine or high-dose cytarabine)

Treatment phase (induction or consolidation)

Disease risk (JALSG risk category)

Disease status (complete remission or non-remission)

Comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, grade 4 neutropenia at the start of chemotherapy, active infection, smoking history, past history of corticosteroid treatment, and prophylaxis for bacterial infection, each as an independent comorbid factor)

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 19.0J software (SPSS Japan, Tokyo, Japan).

Ethical issues

We collected the patients’ information in chart review form with the approval of the Kagawa University Hospital Institutional Review Board (2020–110). We have also obtained patient consent to participate in our retrospective research by opt-out method. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (Kagawa University Hospital Institutional Review Board) and of the Helsinki Declaration (1964, amended in 2008) of the World Medical Association. The patients’ data were de-identified.

Results

In total, 51 patients (25 women, 26 men; median age 53 years, range 18–74) met the eligibility criteria. These patients experienced 171 neutropenic events, of which 68 were during induction and 103 during consolidation chemotherapy, and 115 were FN and 56 afebrile episodes. The patients’ accrual was shown in Fig 2 as a flow chart. The FAB classification was distributed as follows: M0, n = 2; M1, n = 6; M2, n = 21; M4, n = 4; M5, n = 6; M6, n = 6; and secondary AML, n = 6. The patients’ characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The JALSG prognosis score indicated good risk in 16 subjects, intermediate risk in 19, poor risk in 14, and unknown in 2. The rate of response to induction chemotherapy was 56.8% (29/51), and 80.4% (41/51) of patients were alive at the end of follow-up. But one patient died of bacteremia due to Stenotrophomonas maltophilia during chemotherapy. Pathogens were isolated in 30 episodes (17.5%) among all 171 neutropenic events. The most common pathogens were Streptococcus mitis and Klebsiella pneumoniae, which were isolated in seven and three episodes, respectively. Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Streptococcus intermedius were detected in two cases each. The associations between c-D-index and infectious pathogens were compared according to the causative pathogen (gram-positive/negative organisms) or infection focus we detected. The comparison did not yield significant results (P = 0.285 and 0.443, respectively).

Fig 2

Study patients flow chart.

We gathered 51 patients treated for acute myeloid leukemia at our institute. In total, 171 neutropenic events, of which 115 febrile neutropenia episodes were comorbid, were used in our study.

Table 1

Patient characteristics.

Age (years)	Median	53
	Range	18–74
Sex	Male	26
	Female	25
JALSG risk	Good	16
	Intermediate	19
	Poor	14
	Unknown	2
FAB classification	M0	2
	M1	6
	M2	22
	M4	4
	M5a	5
	M5b	0
	M6a	6
	M7	0
	Unknown	6
Diabetes mellitus	(+)	8
	(−)	43
Active infection	(+)	7
	(−)	44
Smoking history	(+)	18
	(−)	28
	Unknown	5
Past history of corticosteroid treatment	(+)	0
	(−)	51
Prophylaxis for bacterial infection	(+)	46
	(−)	5
Induction therapy	IDR + Ara-C	36
	DNR + Ara-C	12
	Unknown	3
Reinduction therapy	IDR + Ara-C	9
	DNR + Ara-C	2
	Other	1
	(−)	39
Consolidation therapy	High-dose Ara-C	22
	Anthracycline + Ara-C	11
	Unknown	18

Abbreviations: JALSG, Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group; FAB, French–American–British classification; IDR, idarubicin; Ara-C, cytarabine; DNR, daunorubicin

Next, we compared each D-index with and without FN (Fig 3). The D-index was found to be significantly higher in patients with FN (P < 0.01) (Fig 3A). The c-D-index on day 11 (c-D11-index) was significantly higher in patients with FN (P < 0.01) (Fig 3B). Nevertheless, the total D-index and the total c-D-index were not significantly different in patients with and without FN. ROC curve analysis defined a c-D11-index of 718 as the best cutoff value (Fig 4). The choice of day 11 was arbitrary, but we repeated the same analysis to find the best sensitivity and specificity results, which were 68.5% and 68.4%, respectively, on ROC curve analysis (Fig 4). The cumulative incidence of FN was significantly higher in the group with c-D11-index ≥710 than in the group with c-D11-index <710 (P < 0.01) (Fig 5).

Fig 3

Comparison of the D-index and the c-D-index in patients with and without febrile neutropenia (FN).

(a) The D-index was significantly higher in patients with FN (P < 0.001). (b) The c-D-index on day 11 (c-D11-index) was significantly lower in patients with FN (P < 0.001). *Statistically significant (P < 0.001).

Fig 4

Sensitivity and specificity validation analysis on receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve.

ROC analysis defined a c-D11-index of 718 as the best cutoff value to discriminate between patients who develop FN after day 11 and those who do not. The sensitivity and specificity of ROC curve analysis were 68.5% and 68.4%, respectively.

Fig 5

Cumulative incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN) according to defined c-D11-index value.

The cumulative incidence of FN was significantly higher in the group with c-D11-index ≥710 (77.2%) than in the group with c-D11-index <710 (41.2%) (P < 0.001). *Statistically significant.

In the univariate analysis of risk factors for the onset of FN, c-D11-index and the presence of diabetes mellitus were identified (P = 0.01 for both factors) (Table 2). Multivariate analysis showed the same contributing factors, i.e., c-D11-index and the presence of diabetes mellitus, as risk factors for the onset of FN (P = 0.01 for both factors) (Table 2).

Table 2

Risk factors for the onset of febrile neutropenia.

Contributing factor	Patient characteristic	HR	P-value	HR	P-value
Patient characteristics and conditions	Age, ≥ median	1.49 (0.98–2.27)	0.06
	Sex, female	0.82 (0.54–1.25)	0.35
	Disease risk (JALSG), poor	1.03 (0.62–1.72)	0.90
	Disease status, nonremission	1.21 (0.79–1.85)	0.39
Chemotherapy regimen	High-dose Ara-C	1.07 (0.70–1.64)	0.75
Past history	Diabetes mellitus	2.07 (1.27–3.39)	0.0038*	1.94 (1.18–3.18)	0.0087*
Clinical data	Absolute neutrophil count at the start of chemotherapy < 500/mL	1.17 (0.68–2.02)	0.56
D-indexes	c-D11-index ≥ 710	2.41 (1.54–3.78)	0.0001*	2.34 (1.49–3.67)	0.0002*

Abbreviations: Ara-C, cytarabine; c-D-index, cumulative D-index.; HR, hazard ratio, JALSG; Japan Adult Leukemia Study Group.

Univariate analysis showed that diabetes mellitus and c-D11-index were contributing factors to the onset of febrile neutropenia. Multivariate analysis also found the same risk factors.

*Statistically significant.

Discussion

In this study, we have investigated whether a set of various types of D-indices (D-index, c-D-index, total D-index, and total c-D-index) can predict FN. As per our findings, only the c-D11-index was significantly associated with FN onset. The D-indices are a group of evaluations of the accumulated deficit of the neutrophil count below 500 cells/μL over the neutropenic period. In this definition, the D-indices conceptually indicate “innate immunity deficiency.” However, a prediction of FN itself using the D-indices as the clinical tool has not been evaluated. Our clinical question is how much the c-D-index changes the risk of FN. We then assessed the value of the c-D-index at 11 days after chemotherapy, specifically the cutoff value of ≥710, in predicting future onset of FN. This time and cutoff decision is deemed important because with it, we can take more intensive preventative action against the development of opportunistic infection at the 11-day mark. Our results may expand the research into prospective interventional infection control according to the presence of FN risk or not.

In this consequent concept, the D-indices were investigated as potential predictors of infections resulting from neutropenia [7-11]. Reports have evaluated the relevance of the D-indices in the prediction of opportunistic infections. Indeed, the original report by Portugal et al. evaluated the efficacy of the c-D-index as a predictor of IFI [7]. They have reported that the c-D-index cutoff value of ≥5,500 is a sensitive predictor of IFI [7]. This original report was followed by further studies in this area [20, 21]. In both reports, a 9–10-day period of prolonged neutropenia was associated with a high risk of IFI. This finding reminds us that patients with antimicrobial-resistant FN after two or three rotations or additions of antibiotics would be at high risk of IFI. More recently, researchers have specified much more adaptation of the D-indices in IFI therapy [12-16]. In a large cohort study for assessing D-index utility in fungal treatment, proven invasive fungal infection was only seen in 1.01% (4/394) cases even after stem cell transplantation (SCT) [12]. They indicated the adequate cutoff value for c-D-index to predict IFI was 10,644, which is deemed too high. D-index-driven therapy exerted comparable [13] or noninferior [14] efficacy to empirical treatment among hematological malignancies, including SCT recipients. However, this predictive value was not shown in either the adult [15] or pediatric populations [16]. The result was controversial in evaluating the efficacy of the D-index in IFI treatment in hematological malignancy, including AML patients and SCT recipients. Thus, use of the D-index utility remains limited in IFI in neutropenic patients.

Another useful application of the D-indices is to estimate the site of location of the infection. FN has been associated with changes in—or the development of—local site- or organ-specific infections, such as pneumonia, oral mucositis, gastrointestinal disease, bloodstream infection, or cutaneous infection. Regarding the infection focus, two later clinical investigations did not find the c-D-index to be a useful predictor of pulmonary infection during consolidation chemotherapy with high-dose cytarabine (Ara-C) [9] or after reduced-intensity SCT [10]. When we have assessed the predictive value of the D-indices for infection focus, they failed to be of significant value both in our previous reports [17] and this trial. One of the reasons for this was the small sample size. In order to advance in this field, it would thus be clinically helpful if c-D-index could predict more specific infectious diseases, not just IFI. However, infection in FN is poorly documented microbiologically [22, 23]. The D-indices might be indicators of specific kinds of infection.

One of the first series of reports regarding the D-index showed that pulmonary infections were predicted when the c-D-index was >5,500 in SCT recipients [8]. In contrast, a higher c-D-index did not predict bloodstream infection in that study [8]. Portugal et al. suggested that the c-D-index is not predictive of bloodstream infection because of this infection’s early occurrence in neutropenia [24]. In our study, pathogens were definitively identified microbiologically in only 30 of 171 cases (17.5%). Prediction of infection in neutropenic patients with malignancies is clinically critical, because it directly contributes to effective antimicrobial therapy. Some advances have been made in the sensitive and accurate diagnosis of infections [23]. The development of these medical techniques and procedures will establish an easier approach to empirical and presumptive diagnosis-driven antimicrobial therapy [20, 25].

In other reports, oral and maxillofacial surgeons evaluated associations between the D-index and oral mucositis (or oral infection) and reported that a higher D-index was not associated with the development of odontogenic infection [26]. These results indicated that some specific infection sites may be associated with severe neutropenia. These infection sites might be influenced or affected by the regimens or doses used [16]. In our study, the onset of microbiologically proven infection was significantly associated with the use of high-dose Ara-C and the presence of diabetes mellitus. The onset of documented infection is thought to be confounded by the concurrent presence of diabetes mellitus, which is associated with poor hygiene in some individuals: poor oral hygiene, foot skin erosion, and so on. In fact, the prevalence of infection at such sites is noted to be higher among diabetic patients than among nondiabetic patients. This implies that diabetes is a universal risk factor for febrile episodes due to infection, including FN [27]; however, this has been found to be marginal or not significant in some trials [28]. The focus of the infection and the causative pathogen may be difficult to detect in FN patients.

In these situations, the D-index is an alternative approach to enable early treatment of underdiagnosed infection before the infection is proven or the patient becomes critically ill. Evidence is growing that the D-index is a useful and convenient tool for predicting IFIs [20]. Pediatric analysis [16] and regimen-related analysis [29] are also available from clinical trials. Recently, a similar evaluation that investigated the lymphocyte index (L-index) during chemotherapy reported that the D-index was more useful than the L-index for screening populations at risk for pulmonary infection [11].

The limitations of this study are that antibiotic data are lacking, it is a single-institute study, and the number of subjects is low. However, this is the first study to demonstrate prediction of FN by the c-D-index among AML patients during induction and consolidation chemotherapy. In conclusion, the c-D-index at day 11 can predict the onset of FN.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

15 Nov 2021

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Benigno C. Valdez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the Methods section, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

[The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.]

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published works, some of which you are an author.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10147-018-01384-9

https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/134/Supplement_1/5190/425016/Lower-c-D-Index-in-Acute-Myeloid-Leukemia-with

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very well-conducted research. However, some recommendations for improvement of the manuscript;

Comment 1: Introduction: Can it predict or differentiate the type of organism or severity of FN?

Comment 2: Method section:

a. Kindly mention the inclusion and exclusion criteria

b. Please add a flow chart of the patient inclusion

Comment 3: Result:

a. What was the association between the D-index and the duration of fever?

b. What were the differences in the D-index between different focuses of infection.

c. Was the index value compared with the type of organism or organ involved or severity of infection??

Comment 4: Discussion:

a. Did you find any correlation between this index and the site of infection?

b. Kindly focus the discussion on the findings of your study only.

Comment 5: Conclusion: what is the conclusion? significance of this information?

Comment 6: References:

a. Use more references from recent publications.

b. Consider adding some references from the developing countries where FN is rampant and the main cause of mortalities: e.g. Mishra K, Kumar S, Ninawe S, Bahl R, Meshram A, Singh K, et al. The clinical profile, management, and outcome of febrile neutropenia in acute myeloid leukemia from resource constraint settings. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 4;8:20499361211036592. doi: 10.1177/20499361211036592.

Jandial A, Mishra K, Panda A, Lad D, Prakash G, Khadwal A, et al. Necrotising Ulcerative Gingivitis: A Rare Manifestation of Pseudomonas Infection. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018 Jul;34(3):578-580. doi: 10.1007/s12288-018-0927-z.

Comment 7: Repetitions in the manuscript should be avoided.

Reviewer #2: c-D-index can predict febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia

İntroduction:

- It is better to explain population as: ‘adult patients’.

- Definition of febrile neutropenia needs correction and reference.

- ‘We obtained informed consent to participate from all patients.’ .Due to retrospective nature of the study , it seems hard to take informed consent from all patients.

In results section:

- Was c-D-index different according to organism identified as the cause of febrile neutropenia?

- It is better to give values of c-D-index according to cultured gram positive / gram negative organisms.

‘We comprehensively categorized the patients’ clinical symptoms

into six focuses of infection according to clinical manifestations and culture results: oral

cavity (stomatitis, toothache, and gingivitis), gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and

abdominal pain), respiratory tract (cough, sputum, dyspnea, and chest pain), skin (rash,

swelling, flare, and painful skin, including in the device insertion area), bloodstream (blood

culture positive but lacking in clinical manifestations), and unknown origin (blood culture

negative and lacking in clinical manifestations or the coexistence of multiple clinical

manifestations that would differentiate other diagnoses).’

- Was c-D-index different accordinf to focuses of infection?

- What about IFI? Was there any IFI cases in group?

In discussion section

-‘Portugal et al. reported a c-D-index cutoff value of ≥ 5500 for sensitive prediction of IFI.’Reference is needed.

-Discussion is inadequate.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Kundan Mishra

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kamile Arıkan

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: Reviewer comment.docx

Click here for additional data file.

31 Dec 2021

Response to Reviewers

To Reviewer 1:

1. Introduction: Can it predict or differentiate the type of organism or severity of FN?

Reply: Thank you for your comment. We, in our previous study, could not differentiate the type of organism and the focus of infection. And no other report predicts the severity of FN. Herein, the scope of our manuscript focused on predicting the onset of FN. We described this in the Introduction (Page 5, lines 4 to 12).

2. Method section:

a. Kindly mention the inclusion and exclusion criteria

b. Please add a flow chart of the patient inclusion

Reply: Thank you for your comment. (a) We have summarized the study inclusion and exclusion criteria in the Methods section (Page 6, lines 4 to 9). (b) Our study cohort is completely made up of consecutive AML patients treated at our institute. We recruited a total of 52 AML cases, but 1 case was not eligible for this study because of the patient’s comorbidity. Thus, we drew a simple flow chart for patient selection (new Figure 2).

3. Result:

a. What was the association between the D-index and the duration of fever?

b. What were the differences in the D-index between different focuses of infection.

c. Was the index value compared with the type of organism or organ involved or severity of infection??

Reply: Thank you for your comment. (a) The D-index is conceptually calculated as the sum of the products of neutropenic days and daily deficit of neutrophils below 500cells/�  L. Therefore, the D-index is not directly associated with fever in its definition. However, prolonged neutropenia can lead to a higher D-index. Clinically, it is anticipated that a higher D-index would be associated with prolonged fever, especially neutropenic fever. In our study cohort, among 171 neutropenic events, we observed 115 FN and 56 afebrile episodes. We added this information in the Results section (Page 11, lines 4 to 5). (b) We evaluated the difference in the D-index by infection focus; however, no significant association was noted between D-index and infection focus (Page 11, lines 17 to 18). (c) Similarly, we could not find any significant relationship between the D-indices and the type of pathogen or infection focus (Page 11, lines 15 to 18).

4. Discussion:

a. Did you find any correlation between this index and the site of infection?

b. Kindly focus the discussion on the findings of your study only.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. (a) We evaluated the difference in the D-index between infection loci; however, there was no significant association between D-index and infection focus (Page 11, lines 15 to 18). (b) We extensively revised our Discussion section.

5. Conclusion: what is the conclusion? significance of this information?

Reply: Thank you for your comment. Our conclusion is simple: The c-D-index at day 11 can predict the onset of FN (Page 17, line 5).

6. References:

a. Use more references from recent publications.

b. Consider adding some references from the developing countries where FN is rampant and the main cause of mortalities: e.g. Mishra K, Kumar S, Ninawe S, Bahl R, Meshram A, Singh K, et al. The clinical profile, management, and outcome of febrile neutropenia in acute myeloid leukemia from resource constraint settings. Ther Adv Infect Dis. 2021 Aug 4;8:20499361211036592. doi: 10.1177/20499361211036592.

Jandial A, Mishra K, Panda A, Lad D, Prakash G, Khadwal A, et al. Necrotising Ulcerative Gingivitis: A Rare Manifestation of Pseudomonas Infection. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2018 Jul;34(3):578-580. doi: 10.1007/s12288-018-0927-z.

Reply: We added ten recent publications, including the article you suggested above (new reference numbers #6). However, the case report which you suggested (Jandial et al. Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus 2018) was not suitable for our manuscript. Thank you for your kindness.

7. Repetitions in the manuscript should be avoided.

Reply: Thank you for the relevant remark. We checked and deleted the redundant description in our manuscript.

To Reviewer 2:

1. İntroduction:

a. It is better to explain population as: ‘adult patients’.

b. Definition of febrile neutropenia needs correction and reference.

c. ‘We obtained informed consent to participate from all patients.’ Due to retrospective nature of the study, it seems hard to take informed consent from all patients.

Reply: Thank you for your comment. (a) We have specified the study population as adult patients (Page 5, lines 8 and 12). (b) We defined the febrile neutropenia with the reference (Page 7, lines 9 to 12). (c) Our study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at our institute, and the consent was obtained via opt-out method in posting the study rationale. We revised the description of patients’ consent in the Ethical Issues section (Page 10, lines 11 to 12).

2. Results section:

a. Was c-D-index different according to organism identified as the cause of febrile neutropenia?

b. It is better to give values of c-D-index according to cultured gram positive / gram negative organisms.

‘We comprehensively categorized the patients’ clinical symptoms into six focuses of infection according to clinical manifestations and culture results: oral cavity (stomatitis, toothache, and gingivitis), gastrointestinal (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain), respiratory tract (cough, sputum, dyspnea, and chest pain), skin (rash, swelling, flare, and painful skin, including in the device insertion area), bloodstream (blood culture positive but lacking in clinical manifestations), and unknown origin (blood culture negative and lacking in clinical manifestations or the coexistence of multiple clinical manifestations that would differentiate other diagnoses).’

c. Was c-D-index different according to focuses of infection?

d. What about IFI? Was there any IFI cases in group?

Reply: Thank you for your comment. (a)(b) Among the patients with FN, documented infections were identified only in 30 episodes out of 171 FN events. Then, the comparison according to the infection sites and the causative pathogens (gram-positive/negative organisms), which is not designated to the statistical comparability, did not prove significance (P=0.285 and 0.443, respectively). We described this result in the Result section (Page 11, lines 15 to 18). (c) We evaluated the difference in the D-index based on infection focus. However, no significant association was noted between D-index and infection focus. (d) Basically, in FN patients, causative pathogens are unknown throughout the treatment. In our cohort patients, the proven invasive fungal infection cases were quite rare (only a single case).

3. discussion section

a. ‘Portugal et al. reported a c-D-index cutoff value of ≥ 5500 for sensitive prediction of IFI.’ Reference is needed.

b. Discussion is inadequate.

Reply: Thank you for this relevant remark. (a) We quoted the manuscript published by Portugal (Page 13, line 19). (b) We extensively revised our Discussion section.

24 Jan 2022

c-D-index at day 11 can predict febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia

PONE-D-21-30375R1

Dear Dr. Imataki,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Benigno C. Valdez, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has been nicely revised by the authors. Heartiest congratulations to all the authors.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Kundan Mishra

4 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-30375R1

c-D-index at day 11 can predict febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy in acute myeloid leukemia

Dear Dr. Imataki:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Benigno C. Valdez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE