Can bacteraemia lead to false positive results in 1,3-beta-d-glucan test? Analysis of 83 bacteraemia episodes in high-risk patients for invasive fungal infections

Abstract Background Usefulness of β-d-glucan (BDG) testing in high-risk patients for invasive fungal infection (IFI) diagnosis has been well demonstrated. However, data on its usefulness in patients without risk factors are limited. We evaluated differences in the diagnostic performance of BDG testing in patients with varying degrees of susceptibility to IFI. Methods From April 2017 to May 2018, all consecutive patients (≥18year-old) who were performed BDG testing (Beijing Gold Mountainriver Tech) were enrolled. Patients were classified into three groups: Group A for patients with host factors defined by 2008 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Mycoses Study Group diagnostic (EORTC-MSG) criteria, Group B for patients with malignancy receiving recent chemotherapy within 1 month without host factors, and Group C for others. Cases of proven and probable IFI defined by EORTC-MSG criteria, Pneumocystis pneumonia and all fungemia were considered as true IFIs. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV and NPV) were calculated with a cut-off value for positivity ≥80 pg/mL. Results Among 473 eligible patients, 190, 142, and 141 patients were classified into group A, B, and C, respectively. Rates of true IFI were significantly different in each group (57/190, 19/142, and 10/141 in each group, P < 0.001). Sensitivities were 0.83, 0.68, and 0.70 and specificities were 0.62, 0.59, and 0.63 in group A, B, and C, respectively. PPVs were considerably different among three groups (PPV for 0.48, 0.20, and 0.12; NPV for 0.89, 0.92 and 0.97 in each group, respectively). Conclusion The BDG test is a useful assay for IFI diagnosis; however, the clinical interpretation should be different by patient risks. Whereas BDG testing could be considered as a tool for predicting IFI in high-risk patients, it only could be a tool for excluding IFI in patient without risk factors. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Download Full-text

Is Antifungal Prophylaxis Useful In Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT) During Hospitalization?.

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v116.21.4541.4541 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 116 (21) ◽

pp. 4541-4541

Author(s):

Giuseppe Irrera ◽

Messina Giuseppe ◽

Giuseppe Console ◽

Massimo Martino ◽

Cuzzola Maria ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Fungal Infections ◽

Mucosal Damage ◽

Invasive Disease ◽

Secondary Prophylaxis ◽

Antifungal Prophylaxis ◽

Antifungal Drugs ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Abstract 4541 Introduction: Limited data demonstrate to what extent preventing fungal exposures is effective in preventing infection and disease. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal duration of fluconazole prophylaxis in allogeneic recipients to prevent invasive disease with fluconazole-susceptible Candida species during neutropenia. Oral, nonabsorbable antifungal drugs might reduce superficial colonization and control local mucosal candidiasis, but have not been demonstrated to reduce invasive candidiasis. Anti-fungal prophylaxis is recommended in a subpopulation of autologous recipients with underlying hematologic malignancies with prolonged neutropenia and mucosal damage. Methods: This is a retrospective study of 1007 SCT performed in our center between 1992 and 2009 in 809 consecutive patients, irrespective of diagnosis. HEPA filter and environmental monitoring (air, water, surfaces) are attributes of our transplant center. Results: The main characteristics of the patients are reported in Table 1. Systemic prophylaxis was used according to the guidelines (Table 2): fluconazole in the nineties, then itraconazole and from 2004 was either abolished or substituted with non-adsorbable prophylaxis in transplants with standard risk. Secondary prophylaxis was prescribed for high risk patients (with infectious fungal history, suggestive iconography, positive fungal biomarker). In 17 years our Center has never been colonized by mould. Only 3 probable aspergillosis infections and 4 proven fungal infections (fusarium, mucor and 2 aspergillosis) were diagnosed, all in allogeneic patients (2 haplotipical, 1 singenic, 1 sibiling, 1 MUD and 2 mismatched), resulting in death in all cases. No infection was documented in autologous setting, while the infection rate in allogenic setting was 3.6% with an incidence rate of 1.1 infection per 10000 transplants/year. These results are significantly lower than published reports. Conclusion: Systemic antifungal prophylaxis should not be performed in autologous SCT patients. The abuse of systemic prophylaxis targeting yeasts has influenced the change of epidemiology in the transplant setting with prevalence of mould infections. The identification of high risk patients is useful to select patients for systemic antifungal or secondary prophylaxis to reducing overtreatment, incidence of resistant strains and costs. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Download Full-text

Time-related changes in yield and harms of screening breast MRI.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.15_suppl.1508 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 1508-1508

Author(s):

Holly Jane Pederson ◽

Colin O'Rourke ◽

Lauren D Bolden ◽

Sobia Khan ◽

Manisha Yadav ◽

...

Keyword(s):

High Risk ◽

False Positive ◽

Short Interval ◽

Breast Mri ◽

Patient Characteristics ◽

Screening Mammography ◽

Significance Level ◽

High Risk Patients ◽

Risk Patients ◽

Over Time

1508 Background: MRI has been accepted as a useful adjunct to screening mammography in high-risk women. Concerns remain over false positive findings, however, and little is known about harms and yield over time. Such information will help women decide about enhanced surveillance. Methods: Of 350 high risk patients offered MRI screening, 320 underwent 757 screens with a 1.5 Tesla magnet from 2008 to 2012 alternating (q 6 mo.) with digital mammography. Data collected included patient characteristics, mammographic density, estimated lifetime risk, and need for additional imaging and/or biopsy. Harms were defined as second look ultrasounds, US or MRI guided core biopsies, surgical biopsies or recommendation for short interval follow up. Estimates of harms over time were modeled by logistic regression. A significance level of 0.05 was used for all testing. Results: Compliance with MRI screening as recommended was 91% with the first MRI, and was not associated with age, race or level of risk. Harms were highest with the first MRI and decreased significantly with subsequent MRIs. Of 59 biopsies, 7 were malignant. Two were found in MRI 1, 3 in MRI 3 and 2 in MRI 4. Women with biopsies resulting from false positive findings were significantly younger (median age 44.5 as compared with 48; p=0.049) and were more likely to have extremely dense breast tissue (36% vs 17%; p=0.028.) Conclusions: This study of highly compliant high risk patients supports the use of MRI as an adjunct to mammography for early detection. The rate of harmful events decreased over time, yet cancer detection did not. This information is critical in counseling women who are considering annual screening breast MRI, particularly younger women and those with dense tissue. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text