4.7 Article

Value of Serial Quantification of Fungal DNA by a Real-Time PCR-Based Technique for Early Diagnosis of Invasive Aspergillosis in Patients with Febrile Neutropenia

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 47, 期 2, 页码 379-384

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.01716-08

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacion Ramon Areces [1397/04]
  2. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [1279/05]
  3. Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo
  4. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  5. Spanish Network of Infection in Transplantation [G03/075]
  6. Spanish Network for the Research in Infectious Diseases [RD06/0008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was designed to assess the reliability of the serial detection of Aspergillus sp. DNA to diagnose invasive aspergillosis (IA) in patients with febrile neutropenia. Two blood and two serum samples were taken weekly from 83 patients. A total of 2,244 samples were analyzed by real-time quantitative PCR. Twelve (14.4%) patients were diagnosed with IA. Taking two consecutive positive results as the diagnostic criterion, PCR detected 11 cases, with 4 false positives, giving sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of 91.6%, 94.4%, 73.3%, and 98.5%, respectively. On analyzing in conjunction with high-resolution chest tomography (HRCT) and galactomannan (GM) testing, the combination of serial PCR and GM detected 100% of aspergillosis cases, with a positive predictive value of 75.1%. This diagnostic strategy presented, according to CART analysis, a receiver-operator curve with an area under the curve of 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.895 to 1.032; P < 0.01), with a relative risk of IA 6.92 times higher than the control population and with predictive success of 95.2%. As regards early diagnosis, the serial detection of Aspergillus DNA took on average 21 days less than HRCT and 68 days less than GM. The serial detection of Aspergillus DNA using real-time quantitative PCR has great diagnostic applicability, which increases when combined with GM quantification.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据