Background. Invasive fungal diseases are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Clarity and uniformity in defining these infections are importan

Background: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential. Methods: To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups’ findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved. Results: There is no change in the classifications of “proven,” “probable,” and “possible” IFD, although the definition of “probable” has been expanded and the scope of the category “possible” has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses. Conclusions: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.

During the past several decades, there has been a steady increase in the frequency of opportunistic invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in immunocompro

BACKGROUND A frequent complication of anticancer treatment, oral and gastrointestinal (GI) mucositis, threatens the effectiveness of therapy because it leads to dose reductions, increases healthcare costs, and impairs patients' quality of life. The Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer and the International Society for Oral Oncology assembled an international multidisciplinary panel of experts to create clinical practice guidelines for the prevention, evaluation, and treatment of mucositis. METHODS The panelists examined medical literature published from January 1966 through May 2002, presented their findings at two separate conferences, and then created a writing committee that produced two articles: the current study and another that codifies the clinical implications of the panel's findings in practice guidelines. RESULTS New evidence supports the view that oral mucositis is a complex process involving all the tissues and cellular elements of the mucosa. Other findings suggest that some aspects of mucositis risk may be determined genetically. GI proapoptotic and antiapoptotic gene levels change along the GI tract, perhaps explaining differences in the frequency with which mucositis occurs at different sites. Studies of mucositis incidence in clinical trials by quality and using meta‐analysis techniques produced estimates of incidence that are presented herein for what to our knowledge may be a broader range of cancers than ever presented before. CONCLUSIONS Understanding the pathobiology of mucositis, its incidence, and scoring are essential for progress in research and care directed at this common side‐effect of anticancer therapies. Cancer 2004;100(9 Suppl):1995–2025. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

This part of the EFISG guidelines focuses on non-neutropenic adult patients. Only a few of the numerous recommendations can be summarized in the Prophylactic usage of fluconazole is supported in patients with recent abdominal surgery and recurrent gastrointestinal perforations or anastomotic leakages. Candida isolation from respiratory secretions alone should never prompt treatment. For the targeted initial treatment of candidaemia, echinocandins are strongly recommended while liposomal amphotericin B and voriconazole are supported with moderate, and fluconazole with marginal strength. Treatment duration for candidaemia should be a minimum of 14 days after the end of candidaemia, which can be determined by one blood culture per day until negativity. Switching to oral treatment after 10 days of intravenous therapy has been safe in stable patients with susceptible Candida species. In candidaemia, removal of indwelling catheters is strongly recommended. If catheters cannot be removed, lipid-based amphotericin B or echinocandins should be preferred over azoles. Transoesophageal echocardiography and fundoscopy should be performed to detect organ involvement. Native valve endocarditis requires surgery within a week, while in prosthetic valve endocarditis, earlier surgery may be beneficial. The antifungal regimen of choice is liposomal amphotericin B +/- flucytosine. In ocular candidiasis, liposomal amphotericin B +/- flucytosine is recommended when the susceptibility of the isolate is unknown, and in susceptible isolates, fluconazole and voriconazole are alternatives. Amphotericin B deoxycholate is not recommended for any indication due to severe side effects.