Fever may be the only clinical symptom at the onset of infection in neutropenic cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. A prompt and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approach is mandatory. A systematic search of current literature was conducted, including only full papers and excluding allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Recommendations for diagnosis and therapy were developed by an expert panel and approved after plenary discussion by the AGIHO. Randomized clinical trials were mainly available for therapeutic decisions, and new diagnostic procedures have been introduced into clinical practice in the past decade. Stratification into a high-risk versus low-risk patient population is recommended. In high-risk patients, initial empirical antimicrobial therapy should be active against pathogens most commonly involved in microbiologically documented and most threatening infections, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, but excluding coagulase-negative staphylococci. In patients whose expected duration of neutropenia is more than 7 days and who do not respond to first-line antibacterial treatment, specifically in the absence of mold-active antifungal prophylaxis, further therapy should be directed also against fungi, in particular Aspergillus species. With regard to antimicrobial stewardship, treatment duration after defervescence in persistently neutropenic patients must be critically reconsidered and the choice of anti-infective agents adjusted to local epidemiology. This guideline updates recommendations for diagnosis and empirical therapy of fever of unknown origin in adult neutropenic cancer patients in light of the challenges of antimicrobial stewardship.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00277-017-3098-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Summary We studied 228 consecutive stem cell transplant recipients, screened for reactivation of human herpesvirus‐6 (HHV‐6) in peripheral blood and other specimens as clinically indicated by means of qualitative polymerase chain reaction. Among them, 197 received an allograft and 31 autograft. Ninety‐six of 228 patients (42·1%) showed HHV‐6 reactivation in peripheral blood and 129 of 228 (56·6%) demonstrated HHV‐6 in at least one of the specimens tested. 41·9% of patients were asymptomatic when HHV‐6 was identified. Clinical features, noted when HHV‐6 was detected, included interstitial or alveolar pneumonia, gastroduodenal and colorectal disease, bone marrow suppression and liver disease. However, based on clinical and histopathological criteria, HHV‐6 was considered a causal agent in only a minority of patients, in particular, those suffering from bone marrow suppression (n = 11), gastroduodenitis (five), colitis (three), interstitial/alveolar pneumonia (five), skin rash (one), pericarditis (two) and encephalitis (one). HHV‐6 reactivation was significantly associated with the occurrence of graft‐versus‐host disease [odds ratio (OR) 5·31], Epstein–Barr virus coinfection (OR 8·89) and unrelated donor transplantation (OR 5·67) indicating an increased stage of immunosuppression.

Morbidity and mortality in patients with malignancies are increased by viral infections. These mostly are reactivations of asymptomatic latent infections. They primarily concern clinical entities associated with the reactivation of herpes viruses, such as varicella zoster virus (VZV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV). Respiratory tract infections caused by influenza, parainfluenza or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are less common. Since reactivation of latent infections has major clinical impact, antiviral prophylaxis is an attractive approach for patients expecting immunosuppression. The main risk factor for clinically relevant reactivation is profound disruption of cellular immune response. Duration and severity of chemotherapy induced neutropenia are of lesser importance. The risk of viral complications rises significantly in the presence of sustained suppression of T-cell function, e.g. in recipients of allogeneic stem cell transplants or of alemtuzumab (Campath-1H) antibody therapy. The objective of this guideline is to review the basis of prophylactic strategies and to provide recommendations for clinicians treating patients with haematological malignancies and solid tumors.

Intravenous ivIGMA had no beneficial effects in neutropenic patients with hematologic malignancies and sepsis syndrome and septic shock.