Abstract Objectives Microbiological strategies are necessary to help clinicians discontinue empirical antifungal therapy in patients with suspected invasive candidiasis. Culture methods and biomarkers each show low sensitivity. We analysed the value of combining different biomarkers as a decision-making tool for discontinuing empirical antifungal treatment. Methods We studied stored serum samples from 31 patients with candidaemia (Candida albicans 40%, Candida tropicalis 20%, Candida parapsilosis 18%, Candida glabrata 12% and other 10%) and 50 patients with bacteraemia at Gregorio Marañón Hospital, Madrid, Spain. C. albicans germ tube antibody (CAGTA), mannan antigens (MN), antimannan antibodies (AMN) and (1→3)-β-d-glucan (BDG) were assayed using the manufacturer's and alternative cut-offs to improve the accuracy of the tests. Results The sensitivity of the biomarkers when used alone was low (58%−84%), but specificity was high (65.8%−92.0%). The best combinations were CAGTA and BDG using cut-offs of 1/80 and 80 pg/mL, respectively (sensitivity 96.8% and specificity 84%), and CAGTA and MN using cut-offs of 1/80 and 75 pg/mL, respectively (sensitivity 93.5% and specificity 86.0%). The sensitivity of both combinations was 100% for C. albicans, C. tropicalis and C. parapsilosis, but only combinations including BDG detected Candida krusei. The negative predictive values (NPVs) of both combinations were, respectively, 97.7% and 95.6% (prevalence of candidaemia, 23.6%). For a prevalence of candidaemia of 5% and 10%, the NPV reached 99.8% and 99.6%. Conclusions The combinations of CAGTA and BDG or CAGTA and MN had a very high NPV at the alternative cut-offs and could be used in antifungal stewardship programmes as a decision-making tool for discontinuing unnecessary empirical therapy in patients with suspected candidaemia.
Results:The application of intersectionality on population-based studies including health reporting may guide the identification of which differences in health outcomes are explained by interlocking power relations.The study will yield the development of gender-sensitive categories to improve nonresponder analysis, multivariable data analysis methods and a model to structure and organize health reports empiricallybased and theoretically grounded in intersectionality. Conclusions:A toolkit of methods to improve identification and understanding of vulnerable populations is developed and shall be applied for a gender-sensitive health reporting.
An updated European Network of Cancer registries (ENCR) Recommendations on Recording and Reporting of Urothelial Tumours of the Urinary Tract had been published in 2022. After the publication by the ENCR of the "Recommendations for coding bladder cancers" in 1995, knowledge about the biology and pathology of urinary tract tumors and their classification has varied and increased substantially. On the other hand, several studies have shown that cancer registries use different definitions, criteria for inclusion and coding of urothelial tumors. This great variability among registries affects not only the criteria for recording (registration, coding and classification) but also the criteria of reporting (counting in the statistics of incidence and survival) urinary tract tumors. This causes difficulties in the data comparability from different registries. Recording and reporting of urothelial tumors requires the application of standard criteria that must take into account the combination of the multiple aspects as the primary topography, the histological type, the grade, the extent of invasion, the multi-centricity, the progressions and the time interval between tumors. This led to the creation of a Working Group of the ENCR that developed these recommendations on the recording and reporting of urothelial tumors of the urinary tract. This article reports these recommendations and the rationale for each.
Population-based cancer registries are responsible for collecting incidence and survival data on all reportable neoplasms within a defined geographical area. During the last decades, the role of cancer registries has evolved beyond monitoring epidemiological indicators, as they are expanding their activities to studies on cancer aetiology, prevention, and quality of care. This expansion relies also on the collection of additional clinical data, such as stage at diagnosis and cancer treatment. While the collection of data on stage, according to international reference classification, is consolidated almost everywhere, data collection on treatment is still very heterogeneous in Europe. This article combines data from a literature review and conference proceedings together with data from 125 European cancer registries contributing to the 2015 ENCR-JRC data call to provide an overview of the status of using and reporting treatment data in population-based cancer registries. The literature review shows that there is an increase in published data on cancer treatment by population-based cancer registries over the years. In addition, the review indicates that treatment data are most often collected for breast cancer, the most frequent cancer in women in Europe, followed by colorectal, prostate and lung cancers, which are also more common. Treatment data are increasingly being reported by cancer registries, though further improvements are required to ensure their complete and harmonised collection. Sufficient financial and human resources are needed to collect and analyse treatment data. Clear registration guidelines are to be made available to increase the availability of real-world treatment data in a harmonised way across Europe.