1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Liquid Biopsy for Invasive Mold Infections in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients With Pneumonia Through Next-Generation Sequencing of Microbial Cell-Free DNA in Plasma

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Noninvasive diagnostic options are limited for invasive mold infections (IMIs). We evaluated the performance of a plasma microbial cell-free DNA sequencing (mcfDNA-Seq) test for diagnosing pulmonary IMI after hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT).

          Methods

          We retrospectively assessed the diagnostic performance of plasma mcfDNA-Seq next-generation sequencing in 114 HCT recipients with pneumonia after HCT who had stored plasma obtained within 14 days of diagnosis of proven/probable Aspergillus IMI (n = 51), proven/probable non-Aspergillus IMI (n = 24), possible IMI (n = 20), and non-IMI controls (n = 19). Sequences were aligned to a database including >400 fungi. Organisms above a fixed significance threshold were reported.

          Results

          Among 75 patients with proven/probable pulmonary IMI, mcfDNA-Seq detected ≥1 pathogenic mold in 38 patients (sensitivity, 51% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 39%–62%]). When restricted to samples obtained within 3 days of diagnosis, sensitivity increased to 61%. McfDNA-Seq had higher sensitivity for proven/probable non-Aspergillus IMI (sensitivity, 79% [95% CI, 56%–93%]) compared with Aspergillus IMI (sensitivity, 31% [95% CI, 19%–46%]). McfDNA-Seq also identified non-Aspergillus molds in an additional 7 patients in the Aspergillus subgroup and Aspergillus in 1 patient with possible IMI. Among 19 non-IMI pneumonia controls, mcfDNA-Seq was negative in all samples, suggesting a high specificity (95% CI, 82%–100%) and up to 100% positive predictive value (PPV) with estimated negative predictive values (NPVs) of 81%–99%. The mcfDNA-Seq assay was complementary to serum galactomannan index testing; in combination, they were positive in 84% of individuals with proven/probable pulmonary IMI.

          Conclusions

          Noninvasive mcfDNA-Seq had moderate sensitivity and high specificity, NPV, and PPV for pulmonary IMI after HCT, particularly for non-Aspergillus species.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium

          Abstract 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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Practice Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Aspergillosis: 2016 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

            It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group.

              Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are important factors in improving the quality of clinical studies. A standard set of definitions strengthens the consistency and reproducibility of such studies. After the introduction of the original European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) Consensus Group definitions, advances in diagnostic technology and the recognition of areas in need of improvement led to a revision of this document. The revision process started with a meeting of participants in 2003, to decide on the process and to draft the proposal. This was followed by several rounds of consultation until a final draft was approved in 2005. This was made available for 6 months to allow public comment, and then the manuscript was prepared and approved. The revised definitions retain the original classifications of "proven," "probable," and "possible" invasive fungal disease, but the definition of "probable" has been expanded, whereas the scope of the category "possible" has been diminished. The category of proven invasive fungal disease can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised, whereas the probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only. These revised definitions of invasive fungal disease are intended to advance clinical and epidemiological research and may serve as a useful model for defining other infections in high-risk patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Clinical Infectious Diseases
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1058-4838
                1537-6591
                October 29 2020
                October 29 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
                [2 ]University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
                [3 ]Karius, Inc, Redwood City, California, USA
                [4 ]Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
                Article
                10.1093/cid/ciaa1639
                33119063
                0c02774d-9b13-407e-950b-672e99f4c3b2
                © 2020

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article