4.5 Article

Epidemiology of candidemia in oncology patients: a 6-year survey in a Portuguese central hospital

Journal

MEDICAL MYCOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 2, Pages 346-354

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3109/13693780903161216

Keywords

Candidemia; blood cultures; cancer patients

Funding

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal [BD/22100/2005]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study presents data on the incidence of candidemia in a Portuguese oncology hospital during a 6-year period. The species distribution and their antifungal susceptibility, as well as the clinical outcomes associated with candidemia were evaluated. A total of 119 episodes were reported, with the majority occurring among patients older than 56 years. The most common underlying medical conditions were solid tumors (64.5%) and hematological disease (28.2%). The most frequent species found was Candida albicans (48.7%), followed by C. parapsilosis (20.2%), C. tropicalis (8.4%), C. krusei (6.7%) and C. glabrata (5.0%), but Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa were also isolated. Candida albicans was more frequently associated with solid tumors of the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and breast (P=0.005), while non-C. albicans Candida species were most frequently recovered from hematological patients (P=0.007). The mortality rate associated with candidemia was 31.9% (P=0.016). All C. albicans and C. parapsilosis isolates were susceptible to fluconazole, voriconazole and itraconazole. Resistance to caspofungin was only observed in C. albicans and in the R. mucilaginosa isolates. Posaconazole was active against all C. parapsilosis isolates tested but resistant strains were found among C. albicans (4.9%), C. tropicalis (12.5%), C. krusei (25%) and C. glabrata (50%). This study provides useful information regarding the local epidemiology of candidemia in cancer patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available