Mucormycosis in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients and in Patients With Hematological Malignancies in the Era of New Antifungal Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The survival benefit of combination antifungal therapy for invasive mucormycosis (IM) in patients with hematologic malignancy (HM) and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) is not well defined. Methods This multicenter, retrospective study included HM and HCT recipients with proven or probable IM between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 from 10 transplant centers across North America. Results Sixty-four patients with proven (n = 47) or probable (n = 17) IM defined by 2008 European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) consensus definitions were included. Thirty-nine (61%) were HCT recipients (95% allogeneic). Sites of infection included rhino-orbital-cerebral (33), pulmonary (30%), disseminated (19%), gastrointestinal (3%), and cutaneous (3%). Surgical debridement was performed in 66%. Initial antifungal treatment consisted of the following: lipid formulation of amphotericin B (AmB) alone (44%), AmB + posaconazole (25%), AmB + echinocandin (13%), AmB + isavuconazole (8%), posaconazole alone (5%), and isavuconazole alone (3%). All-cause mortality at 30 days and 1 year were 38% and 66%, respectively. Initial treatment with AmB plus posaconazole or isavuconazole (n = 28) was associated with a trend toward lower treatment failure compared with AmB (n = 21) (42% vs 64%, P = .136). Conclusions Long-term survival with IM among HM and HCT populations remains poor. However, initial use of AmB + azole in conjunction with surgery may result in less treatment failure. More evidence from prospective controlled studies is needed to confirm this observation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".