Accuracy of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) and Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) scores for predicting serious complications in adult patients with febrile neutropenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The role of serum albumin/globulin ratio in combination with prognostic risk indexes of febrile neutropenia

“…Studies comparing the MASCC and CISNE indices are limited, and their superiority to each other has not been clearly demonstrated. 7,11,[34][35][36] In our study, although both MASCC and CISNE indices were found to be associated with the 30-day mortality of FEN in the univariate analysis, the MASCC score lost this predictive value in the multivariate analysis. Zheng et al evaluated 6,667 FEN patients and found that the sensitivity and specificity were 55.6% and 86.0% for the MASCC scoring system and 78.9% and 64.9% for the CISNE scoring system.…”

“…Both indices attempt to reduce the subjectivity of the MASCC index and increase its predictive value using biochemical parameters. Studies comparing the MASCC and CISNE indices are limited, and their superiority to each other has not been clearly demonstrated 7,11,34‐36 . In our study, although both MASCC and CISNE indices were found to be associated with the 30‐day mortality of FEN in the univariate analysis, the MASCC score lost this predictive value in the multivariate analysis.…”

“…Zheng et al evaluated 6,667 FEN patients and found that the sensitivity and specificity were 55.6% and 86.0% for the MASCC scoring system and 78.9% and 64.9% for the CISNE scoring system. 36 Mohindra et al showed a low sensitivity of CISNE score with a prospectively designed study. 7 These findings…”

“…In our study, although both MASCC and CISNE indices were found to be associated with the 30‐day mortality of FEN in the univariate analysis, the MASCC score lost this predictive value in the multivariate analysis. Zheng et al evaluated 6,667 FEN patients and found that the sensitivity and specificity were 55.6% and 86.0% for the MASCC scoring system and 78.9% and 64.9% for the CISNE scoring system 36 . Mohindra et al showed a low sensitivity of CISNE score with a prospectively designed study 7 .…”

Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients

“…While useful, studies indicate that the MASCC may have inadequate specificity ( Carmona-Bayonas et al, 2011 , Carmona-Bayonas et al, 2015 , Carmona-Bayonas et al, 2017 ), and that an alternative classification method, the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) has a higher specificity in the determination of a cohort at low risk for complications. This may make the CISNE a more useful tool in cases of clinical uncertainty ( Carmona-Bayonas et al, 2015 , Zheng et al, 2020 , Coyne et al, 2017 ). Unlike the MASCC, the CISNE scoring system has never been validated in patients with gynecologic malignancies and thus its utility in this particular patient population remains unknown.…”