The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Outcomes of Bacteremia in Patients with Cancer and Neutropenia: Observations from Two Decades of Epidemiological and Clinical Trials
Abstract
The prognostic significance of major organ and tissue infection was examined in 909 episodes of bacteremia that were selected from 10 consecutive, randomized clinical trials of antibiotic therapy for infection in patients with cancer and neutropenia. Extensive tissue infection significantly compromised response to initial therapy (38% vs. 74%; P < .0001), ultimate outcome of infection (73% vs. 94%; P < .0001), median time to normalization of temperature (5.3 days vs. 2.5 days; P < .0001), and survival (P < .0001). Other poor prognostic factors revealed by logistic regression included shock (P < .0001) and bacteremia caused by Pseudomonas species (P = .03), Clostridium species (P = .006), or a pathogen resistant to antibiotics used for initial therapy (P < .0001). Recovery of the granulocyte count predicted a superior response (P < .0001). Although the overall mortality rate was not significantly increased when patients with bacteremia due to gram-negative organisms initially received monotherapy or when patients with bacteremia due to gram-positive organisms received delayed vancomycin therapy, these strategies increased the duration of therapy by 25%. Patients with bacteremia due to alpha-hemolytic streptococcus died more often when vancomycin was not included in the initial empirical regimen (P = .004). Because of the prognostic significance of extensive tissue or major organ infection, this factor should be considered in decisions concerning modification of therapy and use of colony-stimulating factors. The cost-effectiveness of initial monotherapy and delayed vancomycin therapy remains to be demonstrated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Freifeld, A. G., Bow, E. J., Sepkowitz, K. A., Boeckh, M. J., Ito, J. I., Mullen, C. A., Raad, I. I., Rolston, K. V., Young, J.-A. H., & Wingard, J. R. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir073 · Cited by 3,463
Self-citation2002 guidelines for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer
Hughes, W. T., Armstrong, D., Bodey, G. P., Bow, E. J., Brown, A. E., Calandra, T., Feld, R., Pizzo, P. A., Rolston, K. V. I., Shenep, J. L., et al. (2002) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/339215 · Cited by 1,964
Self-citationWisplinghoff, H., Seifert, H., Wenzel, R. P., & Edmond, M. B. (2003) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/374339 · Cited by 687
Averbuch, D., Orasch, C., Cordonnier, C., Livermore, D. M., Mikulska, M., Viscoli, C., Gyssens, I. C., Kern, W. V., Klyasova, G., Marchetti, O., et al. (2013) · Haematologica · doi:10.3324/haematol.2013.091025 · Cited by 632
Dynamics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa genome evolution
Mathee, K., Narasimhan, G., Valdes, C., Qiu, X., Matewish, J. M., Koehrsen, M., Rokas, A., Yandava, C. N., Engels, R., Zeng, E., et al. (2008) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0711982105 · Cited by 494
Metadata
- Authors
- Elting, L. S., Rubenstein, E. B., Rolston, K. V. I., & Bodey, G. P.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-08
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 247-259
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2114886848
- Cited by
- 385
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Outcomes of Bacteremia in Patients with Cancer and Neutropenia: Observations from Two Decades of Epidemiological and Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/514550
- The paper
- Elting, L. S., Rubenstein, E. B., Rolston, K. V. I., & Bodey, G. P. (1997). Outcomes of Bacteremia in Patients with Cancer and Neutropenia: Observations from Two Decades of Epidemiological and Clinical Trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/514550
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.