MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162815686 · doi:10.14740/wjon850w

Bacterial Spectrum, Isolation Sites and Susceptibility Patterns of Pathogens in Adult Febrile Neutropenic Cancer Patients at a Specialist Hospital in Saudi Arabia

2014· article· en· W2162815686 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mansoor Sirkhazi, Azmi Sarriff, Noorizan Abd Aziz, Fatma Almana, Osama Arafat, Mahmoud Shorman

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeutropenia and Cancer Infections
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFebrile neutropeniaInternal medicineNeutropeniaCancerAcinetobacter baumanniiLung cancerPseudomonas aeruginosaMicrobiologyGastroenterologyBacteriaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Knowing local spectrum and sensitivity for bacterial isolates causing febrile neutropenia is important as starting an appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy is considered a medical emergency in these high-risk patients. Methods: A retrospective study of a total of 106 microbiologically febrile episodes in hospitalized adult neutropenic cancer patients, who were admitted from May 2009 to May 2013, at King Fahad Specialist Hospital, Dammam, Saudi Arabia, was conducted. Results: Among 106 microbiologically documented febrile neutropenic episodes, the majority of malignancies were solid tumors accounting for 53.8% (57/106) and hematological malignancies accounted for 46.23% (49/106). The most common malignancies were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma 19.81% (21/106) followed by acute myeloid leukemia 15.09% (16/106), then colorectal cancer 13.21% (14/106), pancreatic cancer and acute lymphoblastic leukemia accounting for 5.66% (6/106) each, multiple myeloma 4.72% (5/106), gall bladder cancer 3.77% (4/106), and lung cancer 2.83% (3/106). A total of 138 bacterial isolates were identified. The overall prevalence of gram-negative bacteria was 65.94% (91/138) and for gram-positive bacteria was 34.06% (47/138). The most common bacterial isolation sites were blood 33.32% (46 isolates), urine 29.71% (41 isolates), wound 19.55% (27 isolates), body fluids 9.41% (13 isolates) and sputum 7.96% (11 isolates). The most predominant pathogens were Escherichia coli 30.43 (42/138), Klebsiella pneumonia 14.49% (20/138), Staphylococcus aureus 13.04% (18/138), Sptreptococcus spp. 7.25% (10/138), Pseudomonas spp. 7.25% (10/138), Enterococcus spp. 5.80% (8/138), Staphylococcus spp. 4.35% (6/138), Corynebacterium spp. 3.62% (5/138), Enterobacter spp. 3.62% (5/138), Acinobacter spp. 2.90% (4/138), Serratia marcescens 2.17% (3/138), Proteus mirabilis 1.45% (2). Aeromonas hydrophylia, Citrobacter freundii, Providencia stuartii, Sphingomonas paucimobilis and Stenotropomonas multipholia contributed to 0.72% with one isolate each. For gram-negative Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumonia , the extended-spectrum beta-lactamases producers (ESBLs) rates were 38% and 22.22% respectively. For Pseudomonas aerugenosa imipenem-cilastatin resistance rate was 18.84%. For gram-positive bacteria, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) rate was 28.62%. The vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE) rate was 1.18%. Conclusion: Gram-negative bacteria were more prevalent as a cause of infection in adult cancer patients with febrile neutropenia at our institution, with Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumonia with high ESBLs rates being the most common pathogens. Blood stream infections followed by urinary tract infections were the most common sites of infection. The use of initial antibiotic therapy in febrile neutropenic episodes should be based on local bacterial spectrum and susceptibility/sensitivity patterns to prevent treatment failure with increased morbidity and mortality. World J Oncol. 2014;5(5-6):196-203 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/wjon850w

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of OncologySame topicNeutropenia and Cancer InfectionsFrench-language works237,207