Purpose To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empirical management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients. Methods The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and multinational group of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious diseases that includes a patient advocate. For questions of risk stratification and evaluation, we updated systematic reviews of observational studies. For questions of therapy, we conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of any intervention applied for the empirical management of pediatric FN. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify levels of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results Recommendations related to initial presentation, ongoing management, and empirical antifungal therapy of pediatric FN were reviewed; the most substantial changes were related to empirical antifungal therapy. Key differences from our 2012 FN CPG included the listing of a fourth-generation cephalosporin for empirical therapy in high-risk FN, refinement of risk stratification to define patients with high-risk invasive fungal disease (IFD), changes in recommended biomarkers and radiologic investigations for the evaluation of IFD in prolonged FN, and a weak recommendation to withhold empirical antifungal therapy in IFD low-risk patients with prolonged FN. Conclusion Changes to the updated FN CPG recommendations will likely influence the care of pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Future work should focus on closing research gaps and on identifying ways to facilitate implementation and adaptation.

Introduction A pandemic coronavirus, SARS‐CoV‐2, causes COVID‐19, a potentially life‐threatening respiratory disease. Patients with cancer may have compromised immunity due to their malignancy and/or treatment, and may be at elevated risk of severe COVID‐19. Community transmission of COVID‐19 could overwhelm health care services, compromising delivery of cancer care. This interim consensus guidance provides advice for clinicians managing patients with cancer during the pandemic. Main recommendations During the COVID‐19 pandemic: In patients with cancer with fever and/or respiratory symptoms, consider causes in addition to COVID‐19, including other infections and therapy‐related pneumonitis. For suspected or confirmed COVID‐19, discuss temporary cessation of cancer therapy with a relevant specialist. Provide information on COVID‐19 for patients and carers. Adopt measures within cancer centres to reduce risk of nosocomial SARS‐CoV‐2 acquisition; support population‐wide social distancing; reduce demand on acute services; ensure adequate staffing; and provide culturally safe care. Measures should be equitable, transparent and proportionate to the COVID‐19 threat. Consider the risks and benefits of modifying cancer therapies due to COVID‐19. Communicate treatment modifications, and review once health service capacity allows. Consider potential impacts of COVID‐19 on the blood supply and availability of stem cell donors. Discuss and document goals of care, and involve palliative care services in contingency planning. Changes in management as a result of this statement This interim consensus guidance provides a framework for clinicians managing patients with cancer during the COVID‐19 pandemic. In view of the rapidly changing situation, clinicians must also monitor national, state, local and institutional policies, which will take precedence. Endorsed by Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group; Australasian Lung Cancer Trials Group; Australian and New Zealand Children's Haematology/Oncology Group; Australia and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine; Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases; Bone Marrow Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand; Cancer Council Australia; Cancer Nurses Society of Australia; Cancer Society of New Zealand; Clinical Oncology Society of Australia; Haematology Society of Australia and New Zealand; National Centre for Infections in Cancer; New Zealand Cancer Control Agency; New Zealand Society for Oncology; and Palliative Care Australia.

No abstract

There is a strong argument for the use of antifungal prophylaxis in high-risk patients given the significant mortality associated with invasive fungal disease, the late identification of these infections, and the availability of safe and well-tolerated prophylactic medications. Clinical decisions about which patients should receive prophylaxis and choice of antifungal agent should be guided by risk stratification, knowledge of local fungal epidemiology, the efficacy and tolerability profile of available agents, and estimates such as number needed to treat and number needed to harm. There have been substantial changes in practice since the 2008 guidelines were published. These include the availability of new medications and/or formulations, and a focus on refining and simplifying patient risk stratification. Used in context, these guidelines aim to assist clinicians in providing optimal preventive care to this vulnerable patient demographic.

Background Bacteremia and other invasive bacterial infections are common among children with cancer receiving intensive chemotherapy and in pediatric recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Systemic antibacterial prophylaxis is one approach that can be used to reduce the risk of these infections. Our purpose was to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and those undergoing HSCT. Methods An international and multidisciplinary panel was convened with representation from pediatric hematology/oncology and HSCT, pediatric infectious diseases (including antibiotic stewardship), nursing, pharmacy, a patient advocate, and a CPG methodologist. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to generate recommendations based on the results of a systematic review of the literature. Results The systematic review identified 114 eligible randomized trials of antibiotic prophylaxis. The panel made a weak recommendation for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis for children receiving intensive chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia and relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Weak recommendations against the routine use of systemic antibacterial prophylaxis were made for children undergoing induction chemotherapy for ALL, autologous HSCT and allogeneic HSCT. A strong recommendation against its routine use was made for children whose therapy is not expected to result in prolonged severe neutropenia. If used, prophylaxis with levofloxacin was recommended during severe neutropenia. Conclusions We present a CPG for systemic antibacterial prophylaxis administration in pediatric cancer and HSCT patients. Future research should evaluate the long-term effectiveness and adverse effects of prophylaxis.

A B S T R A C TBackground: Reduced intensity treatment of low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer is safe and improves quality of life. Identifying children with low-risk FN using a validated risk stratification strategy is recommended. This study prospectively validated nine FN clinical decision rules (CDRs) designed to predict infection or adverse outcome. Methods: Data were collected on consecutive FN episodes in this multicentre, prospective validation study. The reproducibility and discriminatory ability of each CDR in the validation cohort was compared to the derivation dataset and details of missed outcomes were reported. Findings: There were 858 FN episodes in 462 patients from eight hospitals included. Bacteraemia occurred in 111 (12¢9%) and a non-bacteraemia microbiological documented infection in 185 (21¢6%). Eight CDRs exhibited reproducibility and sensitivity ranged from 64% to 96%. Rules that had >85% sensitivity in predicting outcomes classified few patients (<20%) as low risk. For three CDRs predicting a composite outcome of any bacterial or viral infection, the sensitivity and discriminatory ability improved for prediction of bacterial infection alone. Across all CDRs designed to be implemented at FN presentation, the sensitivity improved at day 2 assessment. Interpretation: While reproducibility was observed in eight out of the nine CDRs, no rule perfectly differentiated between children with FN at high or low risk of infection. This is in keeping with other validation studies and highlights the need for additional safeguards against missed infections or adverse outcomes before implementation can be considered.

PURPOSE To develop a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. METHODS Recommendations were developed by an international multidisciplinary panel that included a patient advocate. We conducted a systematic review of systemic antifungal prophylaxis in children and adults with cancer and HSCT recipients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify level of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. The panel considered directness of the data to pediatric patients. RESULTS There were 68 randomized trials included in the systematic review, of which 6 (9%) were conducted in a solely pediatric population. Strong recommendations were made to administer systemic antifungal prophylaxis to children and adolescents receiving treatment of acute myeloid leukemia, to those undergoing allogeneic HSCT pre-engraftment, and to those receiving systemic immunosuppression for graft-versus-host disease treatment. A strong recommendation was made to administer a mold-active agent with an echinocandin or a mold-active azole when systemic antifungal prophylaxis is warranted. For children younger than 13 years of age, an echinocandin, voriconazole, or itraconazole is suggested. Posaconazole may also be used in those age 13 years or older. A strong recommendation against routine administration of amphotericin as systemic antifungal prophylaxis was made. CONCLUSION We developed a clinical practice guideline for systemic antifungal prophylaxis administration in pediatric patients with cancer and HSCT recipients. Implementation and assessment of guideline-concordant rates and impacts are important future steps.

No abstract