4.4 Article

Viral surveillance using PCR during treatment of AML and ALL

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.26752

关键词

DNAemia; leukemia; pediatric; reactivation; viral

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundWhile viral surveillance of cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and adenovirus using PCR is routine in patients undergoing hematopoetic stem cell transplant and solid organ transplant, the utility in the nontransplant pediatric leukemia population is unknown. Our institution screens patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for viral DNAemia by PCR as part of clinical care. ProcedureThis retrospective chart review included patients treated for newly diagnosed or relapsed AML or ALL between April 2010 and September 2014. We retrieved data for viral PCR screening, detection and quantification, duration of positivity, and prophylaxis or treatment. ResultsOne hundred eleven patients were included in analyses. Forty (36.0%) had at least one blood PCR positive for EBV, CMV, or adenovirus. Patients with ALL had significantly higher rates of persistent viral detection and treatment than those with AML (P < 0.02, P < 0.01, respectively). International patients had significantly higher rates of viral detection (P < 0.01), persistence (P < 0.01), any treatment (P < 0.03), and antiviral treatment (P < 0.01); 16.9% of patients who received intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) prophylactically had viral detection compared to 63% of patients who did not receive prophylactic IVIG (P = 0.0008). ConclusionsPatients with ALL were more susceptible than those with AML to viral reactivation that was persistent or resulted in treatment. Patients with relapsed ALL, refractory ALL, or infantile ALL are most likely to benefit from asymptomatic screening for CMV and adenovirus. International patients are at higher risk for reactivation and may merit screening. EBV reactivation was not significant and does not warrant screening.

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

4.4
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