Bloodstream infection in patients with head and neck cancer: a major challenge in the cetuximab era
To assess the impact of bloodstream infection (BSI) in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) in the cetuximab era.
We prospectively analysed the epidemiology, microbiology and outcomes of 51 BSI episodes occurring in 48 patients with HNC (2006–2017). We performed a retrospective matched-cohort study (1:2) to determine the risk factors for BSI. Finally, we compared patients who died with those who survived to identify risk factors for mortality.
The most frequent HNC localization was the oropharynx (43%), and pneumonia was the most frequent source (25%). Gram-positive BSI occurred in 55% cases, mainly due to Streptococcus pneumoniae (21%), and among Gram-negatives, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the most frequent. Hypoalbuminemia (OR 8.4; 95% CI, 3.5–19.9), previous chemotherapy (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.3–7.4) and cetuximab therapy (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.6–6.7) were significant risk factors for BSI. Patients with BSI had a higher overall case-fatality rate than patients without BSI (OR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.7–11.8). Hypoalbuminemia was an independent risk factor for the early (7 day) and overall (30 day) case-fatalities, with ORs of 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6–0.9) and 0.8 (95% CI, 0.7–0.97), respectively. The presence of comorbidities (OR, 7; 95% CI, 1.4–34) was also an independent risk factor for overall case-fatality.
BSI causes high mortality in patients with HNC and is most often secondary to pneumonia. It occurs mainly among patients with hypoalbuminemia who receive treatment with cetuximab or chemotherapy. The development of BSI in patients with HNC impairs their outcome, especially in the presence of hypoalbuminemia and comorbidities.
KeywordsHead and neck cancer Bloodstream infection Cetuximab Chemotherapy Hypoalbuminemia
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This observational study was approved by the Institutional Review Board Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica del Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge (Ethics Committee of Clinical Research-Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge). To protect personal privacy, identifying information of each patient in the electronic database was encrypted.
Informed consent was waived by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee because no intervention was involved and no patient identifying information was included.
- 1.Maños M, Giralt J, Rueda A, Cabrera J, Martinez-Trufero J, Marruecos J, et al. Multidisciplinary management of head and neck cancer: first expert consensus using Delphi methodology from the Spanish society for head and neck cancer (part 1). Oral Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.04.004.Google Scholar
- 2.Rueda A, Giralt J, Maños M, Lozano A, Sistiaga A, Garcia-Miragall E, et al. Multidisciplinary management of head and neck cancer: first expert consensus using Delphi methodology from the Spanish society for head and neck cancer (part 2). Oral Oncol. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.04.005.Google Scholar
- 4.Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer, update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;2011:52. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir073.Google Scholar
- 18.RS M. Sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-06839-3.00070-9.Google Scholar
- 19.CLSI. Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. CLSI supplement M100S. 2016.Google Scholar
- 21.EUCAST. Breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters European Committee on antimicrobial susceptibility testing breakpoint tables for interpretation of MICs and zone diameters. EUCAST 2016:35–44.Google Scholar
- 22.Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S SR. Applied logistic regression, 3rd edition. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118548387.