No abstract

BackgroundCryptococcosis is a life-threatening opportunistic fungal infection in both HIV-positive and -negative patients. Information on clinical presentation and therapeutic guidelines, derived mostly from clinical trials performed before introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy in patients with cryptococcal meningoencephalitis, is missing data on extrameningeal involvement and infections by serotype D as opposed to serotype A of Cryptococcus neoformans.Methods and FindingsThe prospective multicenter study CryptoA/D was designed in France (1997–2001) to analyse the factors influencing clinical presentation and outcome without the bias of inclusion into therapeutic trials. Of the 230 patients enrolled, 177 (77%) were HIV-positive, 50 (22%) were female, and 161 (72.5%) were infected with serotype A. Based on culture results at baseline, cryptococcosis was more severe in men, in HIV-positive patients, and in patients infected with serotype A. Factors independently associated with mycological failure at week 2 independent of HIV status were initial dissemination (OR, 2.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–4.9]), high (>1:512) serum antigen titre (OR, 2.6 [1.3–5.4]), and lack of flucytosine during induction therapy (OR, 3.8 [1.9–7.8]). The three-month survival was shorter in patients with abnormal neurology or brain imaging at baseline, and in those with haematological malignancy.ConclusionsThus sex, HIV status, and infecting serotype are major determinants of presentation and outcome during cryptococcosis. We propose a modification of current guidelines for the initial management of cryptococcosis based on systematic fungal burden evaluation.

BackgroundGeriatric Assessment is an appropriate method for identifying older cancer patients at risk of life-threatening events during therapy. Yet, it is underused in practice, mainly because it is time- and resource-consuming. This study aims to identify the best screening tool to identify older cancer patients requiring geriatric assessment by comparing the performance of two short assessment tools the G8 and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13).Patients and MethodsThe diagnostic accuracy of the G8 and the (VES-13) were evaluated in a prospective cohort study of 1674 cancer patients accrued before treatment in 23 health care facilities. 1435 were eligible and evaluable. Outcome measures were multidimensional geriatric assessment (MGA), sensitivity (primary), specificity, negative and positive predictive values and likelihood ratios of the G8 and VES-13, and predictive factors of 1-year survival rate.ResultsPatient median age was 78.2 years (70-98) with a majority of females (69.8%), various types of cancer including 53.9% breast, and 75.8% Performance Status 0-1. Impaired MGA, G8, and VES-13 were 80.2%, 68.4%, and 60.2%, respectively. Mean time to complete G8 or VES-13 was about five minutes. Reproducibility of the two questionnaires was good. G8 appeared more sensitive (76.5% versus 68.7%, P =  0.0046) whereas VES-13 was more specific (74.3% versus 64.4%, P<0.0001). Abnormal G8 score (HR = 2.72), advanced stage (HR = 3.30), male sex (HR = 2.69) and poor Performance Status (HR = 3.28) were independent prognostic factors of 1-year survival.ConclusionWith good sensitivity and independent prognostic value on 1-year survival, the G8 questionnaire is currently one of the best screening tools available to identify older cancer patients requiring geriatric assessment, and we believe it should be implemented broadly in daily practice. Continuous research efforts should be pursued to refine the selection process of older cancer patients before potentially life-threatening therapy.