Background Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. Methods To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups’ findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. Results There is no change in the classifications of “proven,” “probable,” and “possible” IFD, although the definition of “probable” has been expanded and the scope of the category “possible” has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. Conclusions These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.

No abstract

The European Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the European Respiratory Society Joint Clinical Guidelines focus on diagnosis and management of aspergillosis. Of the numerous recommendations, a few are summarized here. Chest computed tomography as well as bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in patients with suspicion of pulmonary invasive aspergillosis (IA) are strongly recommended. For diagnosis, direct microscopy, preferably using optical brighteners, histopathology and culture are strongly recommended. Serum and BAL galactomannan measures are recommended as markers for the diagnosis of IA. PCR should be considered in conjunction with other diagnostic tests. Pathogen identification to species complex level is strongly recommended for all clinically relevant Aspergillus isolates; antifungal susceptibility testing should be performed in patients with invasive disease in regions with resistance found in contemporary surveillance programmes. Isavuconazole and voriconazole are the preferred agents for first-line treatment of pulmonary IA, whereas liposomal amphotericin B is moderately supported. Combinations of antifungals as primary treatment options are not recommended. Therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly recommended for patients receiving posaconazole suspension or any form of voriconazole for IA treatment, and in refractory disease, where a personalized approach considering reversal of predisposing factors, switching drug class and surgical intervention is also strongly recommended. Primary prophylaxis with posaconazole is strongly recommended in patients with acute myelogenous leukaemia or myelodysplastic syndrome receiving induction chemotherapy. Secondary prophylaxis is strongly recommended in high-risk patients. We strongly recommend treatment duration based on clinical improvement, degree of immunosuppression and response on imaging.

IntroductionChildhood acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a rare and heterogeneous disease, with an incidence of 7 cases per million children younger than 15 years. In high-income countries, intensive therapy in conjunction with effective supportive care has increased survival rates to ϳ 70%. In 1990 and 2003, expert working groups made recommendations for diagnosis, outcomes, standardization of response criteria, and reporting standards for AML. 1,2 Recent improvements in identifying the molecular genetics and pathogenesis of AML have been implemented in the new World Health Organization (WHO) classification of AML. 3 These changes, and the definition of new diagnostic and prognostic markers and their associated targeted therapies, have prompted the update of earlier recommendations by an international group, on behalf of the European LeukemiaNet for AML in adults in 2010. 4 Despite broad overlap in the diagnostic and treatment recommendations for AML for children and adults, there are important differences in both the diagnostic criteria and disease management, which merit age-specific recommendations. The absence of published recommendations specific for pediatric AML motivated an international group of pediatric hematologists and oncologists (panel and participating groups see "Appendix") to develop evidence-and expert opinionbased consensus recommendations for the diagnosis and management of AML in children, incorporating emerging information on the biology of the disease. The scope of the review is presented in the "Appendix." Recommendations for specific subgroups are also included. This article discusses diagnostic procedures and initial workup, prognostic factors, response criteria, and management, and in particular focuses on differences between adults and children with AML. For personal use only. on May 12, 2018. by guest www.bloodjournal.org From WHO classification and pediatric AMLThe recent WHO 2008 classification is applicable to both adult and pediatric AML 3,5 and has been summarized by Döhner et al. 4 The classification contains most, but not all, cytogenetic subgroups specific to children. Differences in genetic background between children and adults are given in Table 1 and discussed further in "Cytogenetics."Compared with previous classifications (European Group of Immunologic Characterization of Leukemias [EGIL], WHO 2001), 6 the new WHO classification introduced a stringently defined subclass of acute leukemias of ambiguous lineage (mixed phenotype acute leukemias [MPALs]), mainly on the basis of detailed immunophenotypic criteria (Table 2) or presence of t(9;22)(q34; q11.2)/BCR-ABL1 or t(v;11q23)/MLL rearrangement. 3,5,6 The new classification aims to create uniform subgroups defined by unifying molecular targets, which allow selection of specific treatment. Diagnostic procedures and initial workupThe minimal diagnostic requirements in childhood AML are morphology with cytochemistry, immunophenotyping, karyotyping, FISH, and specific molecular genetics in the bone marrow, which is comparable ...

No abstract

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.

This guideline represents an evidence-based approach to FN specific to children with cancer. Although some recommendations are similar to adult-based guidelines, there are key distinctions in multiple areas. Implementation will require adaptation to the local context.

No abstract