Colonization with multi-drug-resistant organisms negatively impacts survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer

Abstract

Objectives

Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) are considered an emerging threat worldwide. Data covering the clinical impact of MDRO colonization in patients with solid malignancies, however, is widely missing. We sought to determine the impact of MDRO colonization in patients who have been diagnosed with Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are at known high-risk for invasive infections.

Materials and methods

Patients who were screened for MDRO colonization within a 90-day period after NSCLC diagnosis of all stages were included in this single-center retrospective study.

Results

Two hundred and ninety-five patients were included of whom 24 patients (8.1%) were screened positive for MDRO colonization (MDROpos) at first diagnosis. Enterobacterales were by far the most frequent MDRO detected with a proportion of 79.2% (19/24). MDRO colonization was present across all disease stages and more present in patients with concomitant diabetes mellitus. Median overall survival was significantly inferior in the MDROpos study group with a median OS of 7.8 months (95% CI, 0.0–19.9 months) compared to a median OS of 23.9 months (95% CI, 17.6–30.1 months) in the MDROneg group in univariate (p = 0.036) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.02). Exploratory analyses suggest a higher rate of non-cancer-related-mortality in MDROpos patients compared to MDROneg patients (p = 0.002) with an increased rate of fatal infections in MDROpos patients (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

MDRO colonization is an independent risk factor for inferior OS in patients diagnosed with NSCLC due to a higher rate of fatal infections. Empirical antibiotic treatment approaches should cover formerly detected MDR commensals in cases of (suspected) invasive infections.

About the Authors:

Jan A. Stratmann

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7726-6622

Raphael Lacko

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Olivier Ballo

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Shabnam Shaid

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Wolfgang Gleiber

Roles Data curation, Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Pneumology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Maria J. G. T. Vehreschild

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision

Affiliations Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, University Center for Infectious Diseases, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Thomas Wichelhaus

Roles Methodology, Supervision, Validation

Affiliations University Center for Infectious Diseases, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, University Center of Competence for Infection Control, Frankfurt, State of Hesse, Germany

Claudia Reinheimer

Roles Methodology, Supervision

Affiliations University Center for Infectious Diseases, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, University Center of Competence for Infection Control, Frankfurt, State of Hesse, Germany

Stephan Göttig

Roles Methodology, Supervision

Affiliations University Center for Infectious Diseases, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Volkhard A. J. Kempf

Roles Methodology, Supervision

Affiliations University Center for Infectious Diseases, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Institute of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, University Center of Competence for Infection Control, Frankfurt, State of Hesse, Germany

Peter Kleine

Roles Data curation, Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Susanne Stera

Roles Data curation, Investigation

Affiliation: Department of Radiation Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Christian Brandts

Roles Formal analysis, Project administration, Supervision

Affiliations Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, University Cancer Center Frankfurt (UCT), Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

Martin Sebastian

Roles Supervision, Validation

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Sebastian Koschade

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Supervision

Affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, Hematology/Oncology, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Introduction

Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) such as vancomycin-resistant Enterococci (VRE), third-generation Cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales, piperacillin/tazobactam-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are considered an emerging threat worldwide as there are fewer and sometimes even no antimicrobial agents left to treat infections caused by these pathogens [1, 2]. The impact of MDRO in patients with hematologic malignancy has been investigated extensively [3–6]. Hematologic patients colonized with MDRO are at a profound risk of invasive MDRO infections [7–9]. Infections with MDRO provoke prolonged hospital stays, increased hospital costs and negatively impact survival [3, 10–14].

However, only few clinical studies have addressed the impact of MDRO infections (compared to non-MDRO infections) in patients with solid malignancies. As most of these analyses suffer from several limitations such as focusing solely on critically ill patients treated on intensive care units [11, 15, 16], providing only short-term follow-ups [17] or including various oncological entities at different disease stages [18], valid conclusions on the overall survival impact of colonization and infection with MDRO in patients with solid malignancies cannot be drawn.

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [19]. Most patients are diagnosed in advanced disease stages and palliative treatment choices consist of targeted therapy, immunotherapy and cytotoxic agents such as platinum–based chemotherapy. Patients at all stages are at high risk of life-threatening infections due to invasive therapeutic and diagnostic procedures, immunocompromising therapy and related comorbidities (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) [20]. Large prospective clinical trials report bacterial infection rates in approximately 10% of patients with limited or advanced disease stages [21–27] and up to 70% in retrospective analyses [28, 29]

The presence of MDRO colonization in patients with NSCLC and its impact on survival has not been investigated so far. We therefore sought to determine the frequency, clinical characteristics and clinical impact with a focus on survival outcomes of MDRO colonization in patients with NSCLC in a retrospective single center analysis.

Material and methods

Defining the study population

Patients diagnosed with NSCLC, stages I-IV according to the Union International Contre le Cancer (UICC) 7th edition between 2012 and 2016 and screened for MDRO (definition see below under “screening procedures and definitions”) within a time period of 90 days calculated from pathological confirmed first diagnosis of NSCLC were included to this analysis. Exclusion criteria were history of or concomitant underlying second malignancy—aside from localized non-melanoma skin cancer (e.g. basalioma) that had been curatively treated -, insufficient case documentation and missing MDRO screening. Patient data used in this study were provided by the University Cancer Center Frankfurt (UCT). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients and the study was approved by the institutional Review Boards of the UCT and the Ethical Committee at the University Hospital Frankfurt (project-number: STO-01-2016, Amendment 1, 06.06.2018).

Screening procedure and definitions

According to German infection law (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG) [30] execution of an infection control protocol in order to prevent the transmission of infective agents, such as MDRO is mandatorily required. At the University hospital Frankfurt, this legal requirement by IfSG as well as the recommendations of the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) at the Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany (e.g. recommendations for prevention and control of MRSA in medical and nursing facilities; [31]) are entirely fulfilled. Therefore, patients reporting defined risk factors, e.g. arriving from high-prevalence countries, e.g. including but not limited to countries from the middle east, south-east Asia and India for MDRO, being refugee as well as patients admitted to any intensive/intermediate care unit as well as all patients admitted to the thoracic surgery ward and patients admitted to the clinical oncology ward need to be screened for MDRO at the day of admittance by nasal, rectal and pharyngeal swabs [32, 33].

MDRO were defined as Enterococcus faecium or Enterococcus faecalis with vancomycin resistance (VRE) and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria were defined as Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis with extended spectrum beta–lactamase (ESBL)–like phenotype as well as Enterobacterales, Acinetobacter baumannii and Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant against piperacillin, any 3rd/4th generation Cephalosporin, and fluoroquinolones ± carbapenems [31].

Patients were defined as “colonized” if an MDRO was detected (MDROpos) in at least one nasal, rectal or pharyngeal swab. Screened patients without evidence of MDRO colonization were defined as MDROneg. In case of multiple MDRO screenings within the predefined time period at first diagnosis, the first screening result defined group assignment.

Detection and molecular resistance analysis in MDRO

Rectal swabs were collected using culture swabs with Amies collection and transport medium (Hain Lifescience, Nehren, Germany) and were afterwards streaked onto CHROMagarTM ESBL plates (Mast Diagnostica, Paris, France), chromID CARBA (bioMérieux, Nürtingen, Germany), chromID VRE (bioMérieux), chromID OXA-48 (bioMérieux), Brilliance MRSA-Agar (Oxoid, Wesel, Germany). Matrix-assisted-laser desorption ionization-time of flight analysis (MALDI–TOF) and VITEK2 (bioMérieux) were used to identify gram negative species, when growth was detected. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was carried out according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines by VITEK 2 and antibiotic gradient tests (bioMérieux) or agar diffusion (Oxoid). Carbapenemase encoding genes were detected via polymerase chain reaction analysis and subsequent sequencing from carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales including the bla genes for carbapenemases OXA–48, OXA–48 like and KPC, NDM, VIM, IMP as well as OXA–23, OXA–24, OXA–51, and OXA– 58 for A. baumannii [34]. For the detection of MRSA, nasal and pharyngeal swabs were inoculated on Brilliance MRSA Agar (Oxoid, Wesel, Germany). Identification of MRSA species was done by MALDI–TOF and antibiotic susceptibility testing using VITEK 2. The clonal identity of MRSA isolates was analyzed by staphylococcal protein A (spa) typing using the Ridom StaphType software (Ridom GmbH, Würzburg, Germany), as previously reported [32, 34]. All laboratory testing was performed under strict quality-controlled criteria (laboratory accreditation according to ISO 15189:2007 standards; certificate number D–ML–13102–01–00, valid through January 25th, 2021).

Study endpoints

Predefined primary study endpoints were event-free-survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) compared between MDROpos and MDROneg groups, taking into account known confounding variables such as gender, age, disease stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status, NSCLC histology, smoking status and concomitant diseases in multivariate analysis. Event-free-survival was defined as the time period until re-occurrence of histologically confirmed lung cancer after curative treatment or the time period until next treatment line or death from any cause, whichever came first. Patients who were still alive at data cut-off were censored with regard to OS at the date of last contact. Patients who did not die or did not show any of the above-mentioned events at the time of the data cut-off were censored with regard to EFS analysis at the date of last contact.

Secondary endpoints were the distribution of causes of death stratified by MDRO colonization status and number and length of hospital stays stratified by cause of inpatient treatments. The specific causes of death were extracted from the letter of notification or death certificate. Exploratory endpoints were the rate of subsequently detected invasive MDRO infections and evaluation of antibiotic approaches in MDROpos patients with infectious complications. Finally, we planned to compare the eligible study cohort to patients who were primarily excluded from the analysis due to missing MDRO screening (off-target population).

Statistical analysis

The number of all included patients and recorded variables were reported descriptively. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method for estimation of the percentage of surviving patients and the log-rank test for comparing patient groups. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used for multivariate analyses. Proportional hazards assumption and residuals were checked formally and graphically. Schoenfeld residuals for all covariates were verified to be independent of time. Competing risks of death and their cumulative incidences were analyzed using R’s cmprsk package implementing the proportional subdistribution hazards’ regression model described in Fine and Gray (1999) [35] with failure types as indicated and MDRO colonization as a binary covariate. Comparative analyses for differences in proportions and other numerical variables between study groups were performed using Chi2 test and Mann-Whitney U test. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. R version 3.5.1 and GraphPad Prism version 6.01 were used for statistical analysis and reporting of the data collected for this study.

Results

Study population and off-target analysis

We identified 639 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between 2012 and 2016 in the institutional cancer registry of the University Hospital, Frankfurt am Main, Germany of whom 295 were available for further analysis. A CONSORS flow chart showing the process of inclusion of eligible patients into the analysis is available in S1 Fig in S1 File. Twenty-four patients (8.1%) were colonized with MDRO (MDROpos). Two hundred seventy-one patients (91.9%) were defined as MDROneg within the screening period. Median time to first MDRO screening calculated from first diagnosis was 20 days (range, 0–84 days). Comparative descriptive statistics of the study groups are illustrated in Table 1. Median age was 66 years (range, 29–90 years). Approximately 80% had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 and one third of all patients presented with metastatic disease stage (UICC IV). The majority of patients were former or active smokers. Aside of concomitantly underlying diabetes mellitus that was more frequently present in MDROpos patients, we did not find significant differences in patient or disease characteristics between MDROpos and MDROneg patients in univariate and multivariate analysis (S2 Table in S1 File).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Patient and disease characteristics.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.t001

First-line treatment approaches did not differ significantly between study groups. Notably, only a minority of patients diagnosed with driver mutations received a first-line targeted therapy. This is partially owed to the fact that ALK, ROS1 and BRAF inhibitors were first approved for first line treatment in Germany in late 2016 and 2018, respectively. Five patients in the MDROneg group and no patient in the MDROpos group received best supportive care only.

We then compared the eligible study cohort with patients identified in the registry without MDRO screening within the predefined time frame. The off-target population (107/402; 26.6%) was significantly younger (p = 0.001), had a higher proportion of patients with ECOG 3 or worse performance status in addition to a higher proportion of patients with advanced or metastatic disease (p = 0.0001) (S3 Table in S1 File). Besides diabetes, which was more prevalent in the study cohort (p = 0.004), other comorbidities were well balanced. The OS of the off-target cohort was significantly inferior compared to the study cohort, yet no survival differences in patients with advanced or metastatic disease (IIIB, IV; UICC 7th) between the overall off-target and the study population were noticed (not shown).

MDRO

A total of 24 patients (8.1%) were screened positive for MDRO colonization. Detailed information on resistance phenotype of all MDRO is shown in S4 Table in S1 File. Enterobacterales were by far the most frequent MDRO detected with a proportion of 79.2% (19/24), all of which had phenotypical resistance to 3rd/4th generation Cephalosporins (Ceftriaxone, Cefotaxime, Ceftazidime, Cefepime). Additionally, most species were resistant to piperacillin and more than half were resistant to folate pathway inhibitors (Trimethoprim/Sulfamethoxazole). Resistance against aminoglycosides (Amikacin, Gentamicin), tigecycline and fosfomycin were infrequent. All MDR Enterobacterales detected were susceptible to carbapenems (Imipenem, Meropenem, Ertapemem). Enterococcus faecium with resistance to ampicillin, carbapenem and fluoroquinolones (Levofloxacine, Ciprofloxacine, Moxifloxacine) and incomplete resistance to glycopeptides (Vancomycine, Teicoplanin)(3x vanB phenotype, 1x vanA phenotype) were detected in 16.7% (4/24) of all MDROpos cases. Additional resistance to aminoglycosides (high-level) and tetracyclines was detected in one case each. One MRSA (4.2%, 1/24) with phenotypical resistance against fluoroquinolones, lincosamides (Clindamycin) and macrolides (Erythromycin) was identified. The most common location for MDRO colonization was rectal (95.8%) in all but the MRSA case, which was detected in a nose swab.

The incidence of subsequent colonization with multiple MDRO in MDROpos patients within the screening period was 25%, 3 patients acquired additional ESBL-producing species and 3 patients acquired additional VRE. Altogether, 16 patients in the MDROneg group were subsequently screened positive for MDRO after a median time calculated from first diagnosis of 495 days (range, 109–1231 days). Because subsequent screening procedures in patients with NSCLC were only irregularly performed, especially in patients who were mainly treated on an outpatient basis, further analyses on these patients (with subsequently acquired MDRO colonization) were not carried out due to probable selection bias of this subpopulation.

Primary outcome analysis: Survival

Kaplan-Meier estimates for EFS and OS of the overall population and stratified by MDRO colonization are shown in Fig 1A–1D. Median EFS did not differ between MDROpos (7.1 months; 95% CI, 0.0–16.7 months) and MDROneg (10.3 months; 95% CI, 7.9–12.9 months) study groups with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25 (95% CI, 0.74–2.21; p = 0.25) (Fig 1D), that was further confirmed by multivariate analysis (S5 Table in S1 File). There were 92 censored events (31.2%) in the EFS analysis. Median OS was significantly inferior in the MDROpos study group with a median OS of 7.8 months (95% CI, 0.0–19.9 months) compared to a median OS of 23.9 months (95% CI, 17.6–30.1 months) in the MDROneg group resulting in a HR of 1.9 (95% CI, 1.02–3.7); p = 0.036)(Fig 1B). There were 120 censored events (41.0%) in the OS analysis.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

(A) OS of all patients. (B) OS of patients stratified by multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) colonization. (C) PFS of all patients. (D) PFS of patients stratified by colonization with MDRO. Log-rank test was used to calculate p values in (C+D).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.g001

When stratified for disease stage (Fig 2A), median OS in the MDROpos study group showed a significantly inferior median survival time in patients with advanced (IIIB) or metastatic disease (IV)(4.4 months vs 10.5 months; HR, 2.9; 95%CI, 1.9–19.6; p = 0.0004) (Fig 2C), whereas we found no significant difference in survival between MDROpos and MDROneg study groups with early disease stages (IA-IIIA; HR 1.4; 95%CI, 0.6–3.5; p = 0.39)(Fig 2B). Stratification by MDRO species did not yield significant differences in OS among MDROpos patients colonized with VRE, MRSA or ESBL (p = 0.12) (Fig 2D). The negative impact on survival outcomes was further confirmed in multivariate analysis adjusted for gender, age, disease stage, ECOG performance status, NSCLC histology and presence of concomitant underlying diabetes (Fig 3). In addition to MDRO colonization, performance status and disease stage were identified as independent prognostic variables.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Competing risks analysis for death.

(A) Cumulative incidence functions for relapse mortality, non-relapse mortality, or mortality not otherwise specified (unknown) of all patients. (B) Cumulative incidence functions of patients stratified by multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) colonization. Competing risks regression model [35] was used to calculate p values for differences in non-relapse mortality (p < 0.00001) and relapse mortality (p = 0.49) between patients colonized by MDRO and patients without MDRO.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for death.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.g003

Secondary and exploratory outcome analysis

Cause of death.

The distribution of causes of death stratified by MDRO colonization status is depicted in Table 2 and Fig 4. There was a significantly higher rate of non-cancer-related-mortality in MDROpos patients compared to MDROneg patients (p = 0.002) and a significantly higher rate of infectious causes (p = 0.002) The most frequently observed infection-related cause of death was pneumonia with or without septicemia in 5 cases in the MDROpos group, 2 additional patients died of pleural empyema. The empirical antibiotic treatment approach in 5 of these patients consisted of agents that were primarily tested non-susceptible to the detected MDRO. Invasive infections from the formerly detected MDRO within the MDROpos group were determined in two cases (2/7, 28.6%) (VRE-positive blood culture of a patient with pneumonia-induced sepsis; evidence of ESBL in pleural empyema). In the remaining 5 patients the pathogenic organism could not be detected by serial blood cultures.

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 4.

Cumulative incidence of death stratified by non-cancer related and cancer related mortality (A) in the whole study group. (B) stratified by MDRO colonization.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.g004

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Equal distribution of causes of death between the MRDOpos and MRDOneg subgroup.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.t002

In the MDROneg study group, 8 patients (36%) succumbed to infectious complications, 4 of which had evidence of an invasive pathogen. One of these patients died of pneumonia-induced sepsis caused by a subsequently acquired (after the initial screening period) piperacillin- and carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, whose profile of resistance could not be considered at the time of initial antibiotic treatment.

Number and duration of hospital stays.

Overall, there were no differences in number and duration of all-cause hospital admissions between MDROpos and MDROneg patients. Likewise, there were no differences in number and duration of hospital admissions for infectious complications between MDROpos and MDROneg study groups (S6 and S7 Figs in S1 File). Comparison of number and duration of inpatient treatments between study groups were however not adjusted for differences in median survival times between MDROpos and MDROneg patients.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study that aimed to determine the clinical impact of MDRO colonization in patients with NSCLC. We show that MDRO colonization is an independent risk factor for impaired overall survival, independent of confounding variables, such as performance status and disease stage.

Our study demonstrates considerable colonization rates (8.1%) with ESBL producing Enterobacterales and VRE species in patients with NSCLC across all subgroups in terms of age, stage, performance status and concomitant underlying (renal, heart, liver) diseases among other variables. We encountered a significantly higher co-occurrence of diabetes in patients screened positive for MDRO. Diabetes has previously been identified as a potential risk factor for MDRO colonization [36, 37] and subsequent bloodstream infections with intestinal bacteria due to disruption of the gut barrier [38, 39]. The overall prevalence of MDRO colonization at admission has been reported to be as high as 10% for ESBL producing Enterobacterales [40, 41], reaching a prevalence of 20% in specific patient subgroups [9], and 2% for VRE [42] in German tertiary care centers. The colonization rate in our study was slightly lower than previously reported. Colonization rates are known to be significantly influenced by the patient subgroups examined and other risk factors such as antibiotic and surgical pretreatment, proton pump inhibitor usage, travel habits, prior hospitalizations and country of origin [33, 40, 43–45]. These factors were not assessed in our study and might contribute to the lower prevalence of MDRO colonization seen in our cohort. Furthermore, as many patients are seen as outpatients (with less stringent screening), MDRO positive patients may be underreported.

Approximately 80% of non-cancer-related mortality in the MDROpos group was infection-related as extracted from the corresponding death certificates. We did not observe any differences in hospital admission rates and/or duration of inpatient treatment (for infectious or other causes) between MDROpos and MDROneg patients, suggesting that MDRO colonization by itself may not be a strong risk factor for the frequency of subsequent invasive bacterial infections in this patient cohort, but instead mediates a higher fatality rate due to more severe infectious complications. However, this data is hard to interpret. Firstly, the number of outpatient visits (e.g. for infectious complications) could not be analyzed due to insufficient documentation. Secondly, we do not have sufficient information on the final course of each individual patient to judge the contribution of infectious-related complications to the death of patients with progressive cancer. And thirdly, we cannot exclude a misclassification of the cause of death by the responsible physician.

Infections, particularly involving the lung tissue have been identified as a major cause of death in several retrospective studies [28, 29]. Patients with advanced disease stages were more prone to infectious complication and data suggests that they may adversely affect survival.

It has been shown that the increased fatality rate in MDROpos patients is at least partially attributable to inadequate empirical antibiotic treatment in case of invasive infections [17, 46]. Indeed, in 5 of the 7 fatal infections within the MDROpos cohort, the initial antibiotic regime did not take into account the prior proven MDRO colonization. Colonizing MDR bacteria were detected in 2 out of the 7 cases (29%) of pulmonary infections reported here. This is in agreement with previous reports on the overall low sensitivity regarding the detection of invasive pathogens by blood cultures [47]. Bacteremia is diagnosed in less than 10% by serial blood cultures of patients suffering from pneumonia despite clinical indications of bloodstream infections. Nevertheless, gut bacteria play a major role in NSCLC-associated lung tissue infections [48–50] and empirical antibiotic treatment should be selected considering intestinal MDRO bacteria.

There is emerging evidence that the gut microbiota affects systemic inflammation and immunity and there are multiple possible mechanisms linking microbiota to carcinogenesis, tumor outgrowth and metastases, altered metabolism, pro-inflammatory and impaired immune-response [51–53]. Almost all colonizing MDRO in our study have been identified by rectal screening. Susceptibility to and presence of intestinal MDRO has been linked to alterations in the gut microbiota with reduced bacterial diversity [54, 55], which in turn is associated with reduced tumor response to cytotoxic agents and immunotherapy in lung cancer [56–59]. This is also supported by reduced clinical benefit from immunotherapy after the usage of antibiotics in patients with NSCLC [56, 60]. In our study, however, first-line EFS was not different between MDROpos and MDROneg groups, indicating only minor–if any–influence of MDRO on response to conventional antineoplastic therapy. As immunotherapeutic agents were not approved for first-line treatment in NSCLC until 2017, we cannot draw conclusions regarding the impact of MDRO colonization on the treatment response to immunotherapeutic agents. Prospective studies are needed to further address the relevance of MDRO colonization and the impact of intestinal microbiota alterations on tumor response to immunotherapy and/or cytotoxic agents.

Finally, there is conflicting evidence, whether MDR bacteria have additional genomic content including factors known or supposed to be associated with increased virulence [61, 62]. Vancomyin-resistant E. faecium and ESBL-producing species have been shown to incorporate virulence factors in co-occurrence with genes for antibiotic resistance [63–68] and these factors might overall contribute to the higher mortality seen in MDROpos patients. However, since genetic analyses addressing the co-occurrence of virulence factors other than antibiotic resistance genes were not performed, we can only speculate on their influence on the overall mortality outcome in our study.

We fully acknowledge the limitations of a retrospective analysis conducted in a single tertiary treatment center. Significant differences between the study group and off-target population are indicative of selection bias due to MDRO screening. However, the proportion of patients excluded from the final analysis due to missing MDRO screening was only approximately 25% of the total screening population (patients with second malignancy excluded). Additionally, due the overall limited sample size our results need confirmation in larger series before drawing final conclusions regarding the impact of MDRO colonization in patients with oncological diseases. However, we believe that our findings corroborate available data collected in patients with (dominantly) hematologic malignancies that consistently show inferior survival outcomes in patients either with invasive MDRO infections or MDRO colonization [3, 5, 9, 12–14, 17, 69–71].

Conclusion

We conclude that MDRO colonization our population is an independent risk factor for inferior OS in patients diagnosed with NSCLC. Impairment Patients with advanced or metastatic disease seem to be at highest risk for impaired survival. Furthermore our data suggest, that a higher rate of non-cancer related mortality and infections in particular might contribute to the inferior survival in MDRO colonized patients. Given the high and rising rate of MDRO colonization in oncological patients, early and frequent screening is warranted in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Empirical antibiotic treatment approaches need to cover formerly detected MDR commensals in cases of (suspected) invasive infections.

More studies should elucidate the impact of MDRO colonization and intestinal bacterial diversity within the rapidly changing landscape of antineoplastic treatment options in patients with NSCLC.

Supporting information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 Table.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.s001

(XLSX)

S1 File.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank all members of and contributors to the University Cancer Center Frankfurt, who made this analysis possible.

Citation: Stratmann JA, Lacko R, Ballo O, Shaid S, Gleiber W, Vehreschild MJGT, et al. (2020) Colonization with multi-drug-resistant organisms negatively impacts survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0242544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242544

References

1. Bertrand X, Dowzicky MJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility among gram-negative isolates collected from intensive care units in North America, Europe, the Asia-Pacific Rim, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa between 2004 and 2009 as part of the Tigecycline Evaluation and Surveillance Trial. Clin Ther 2012; 34(1):124–37. pmid:22154196

2. Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in Europe: Annual report of the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Network (EARS-Net) 2016. [Luxembourg]: [Publications Office]; 2017. (Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in Europe 2016).

3. Ford CD, Lopansri BK, Haydoura S, Snow G, Dascomb KK, Asch Jet al. Frequency, risk factors, and outcomes of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization and infection in patients with newly diagnosed acute leukemia: Different patterns in patients with acute myelogenous and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36(1):47–53. pmid:25627761

4. Gedik H, Şimşek F, Kantürk A, Yıldırmak T, Arıca D, Aydın Det al. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci colonization in patients with hematological malignancies: Screening and its cost-effectiveness. Afr Health Sci 2014; 14(4):899–905. pmid:25834499

5. Satlin MJ, Soave R, Racanelli AC, Shore TB, van Besien K, Jenkins SGet al. The emergence of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Leuk Lymphoma 2014; 55(12):2858–65. pmid:24559288

6. Sengar M, Kelkar R, Jain H, Biswas S, Pawaskar P, Karpe A. Frequency of bacterial isolates and pattern of antimicrobial resistance in patients with hematological malignancies: A snapshot from tertiary cancer center. Indian J Cancer 2014; 51(4):456–8. pmid:26842160

7. Vehreschild MJGT, Hamprecht A, Peterson L, Schubert S, Häntschel M, Peter Set al. A multicentre cohort study on colonization and infection with ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae in high-risk patients with haematological malignancies. J Antimicrob Chemother 2014; 69(12):3387–92. pmid:25103492

8. Gedik H, Yıldırmak T, Simşek F, Kantürk A, Arıca D, Aydın Det al. Vancomycin-resistant enterococci colonization and bacteremia in patients with hematological malignancies. J Infect Dev Ctries 2014; 8(9):1113–8. pmid:25212075

9. Ballo O, Tarazzit I, Stratmann J, Reinheimer C, Hogardt M, Wichelhaus TAet al. Colonization with multidrug resistant organisms determines the clinical course of patients with acute myeloid leukemia undergoing intensive induction chemotherapy. PLoS One 2019; 14(1):e0210991. pmid:30673776

10. Engler-Hüsch S, Heister T, Mutters NT, Wolff J, Kaier K. In-hospital costs of community-acquired colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms at a German teaching hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2018; 18(1):737. pmid:30257671

11. Cornejo-Juárez P, Vilar-Compte D, Pérez-Jiménez C, Ñamendys-Silva SA, Sandoval-Hernández S, Volkow-Fernández P. The impact of hospital-acquired infections with multidrug-resistant bacteria in an oncology intensive care unit. Int J Infect Dis 2015; 31:31–4. pmid:25528484

12. Cho S-Y, Lee D-G, Choi S-M, Kwon J-C, Kim S-H, Choi J-Ket al. Impact of vancomycin resistance on mortality in neutropenic patients with enterococcal bloodstream infection: A retrospective study. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13:504. pmid:24164924

13. Sostarich AM, Zolldann D, Haefner H, Luetticken R, Schulze-Roebecke R, Lemmen SW. Impact of multiresistance of gram-negative bacteria in bloodstream infection on mortality rates and length of stay. Infection 2008; 36(1):31–5. pmid:18231721

14. Ornstein MC, Mukherjee S, Keng M, Elson P, Tiu RV, Saunthararajah Yet al. Impact of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia on outcome during acute myeloid leukemia induction therapy. Leuk Lymphoma 2015; 56(9):2536–42. pmid:25563427

15. Cornejo-Juarez P, Vilar-Compte D, Garcia-Horton A, Lopez-Velazquez M, Namendys-Silva S, Volkow-Fernandez P. Hospital-acquired infections at an oncological intensive care cancer unit: differences between solid and hematological cancer patients. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16:274. pmid:27286681

16. Costa PdO Atta EH, Silva ARAd. Infection with multidrug-resistant gram-negative bacteria in a pediatric oncology intensive care unit: risk factors and outcomes. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2015; 91(5):435–41.

17. Marín M, Gudiol C, Garcia-Vidal C, Ardanuy C, Carratalà J. Bloodstream infections in patients with solid tumors: Epidemiology, antibiotic therapy, and outcomes in 528 episodes in a single cancer center. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014; 93(3):143–9.

18. Al-Otaibi FE, Bukhari EE, Badr M, Alrabiaa AA. Prevalence and risk factors of Gram-negative bacilli causing blood stream infection in patients with malignancy. Saudi Med J 2016; 37(9):979–84. pmid:27570854

19. Stewart BW, Wild CP. World cancer report 2014. Geneva, Switzerland, Lyon, France: Distributed by WHO Press, World Health Organization; International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.

20. Young RP, Hopkins RJ, Christmas T, Black PN, Metcalf P, Gamble GD. COPD prevalence is increased in lung cancer, independent of age, sex and smoking history. Eur Respir J 2009; 34(2):380–6. pmid:19196816

21. Socinski MA, Jotte RM, Cappuzzo F, Orlandi F, Stroyakovskiy D, Nogami Net al. Atezolizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Nonsquamous NSCLC. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(24):2288–301. pmid:29863955

22. Soria J-C, Ohe Y, Vansteenkiste J, Reungwetwattana T, Chewaskulyong B, Lee KHet al. Osimertinib in Untreated EGFR-Mutated Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2018; 378(2):113–25. pmid:29151359

23. Mok TS, Wu Y-L, Ahn M-J, Garassino MC, Kim HR, Ramalingam SSet al. Osimertinib or Platinum-Pemetrexed in EGFR T790M-Positive Lung Cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 376(7):629–40. pmid:27959700

24. Park C-K, Oh I-J, Kim K-S, Choi Y-D, Jang T-W, Kim Y-Set al. Randomized Phase III Study of Docetaxel Plus Cisplatin Versus Pemetrexed Plus Cisplatin as First-line Treatment of Nonsquamous Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: A TRAIL Trial. Clin Lung Cancer 2017; 18(4):e289–e296. pmid:28185792

25. Sun J-M, Noh JM, Oh D, Kim HK, Lee S-H, Choi YSet al. Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Chemoradiotherapy with Chemotherapy for Completely Resected Unsuspected N2-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2017; 12(12):1806–13. pmid:28962948

26. Wakelee HA, Dahlberg SE, Keller SM, Tester WJ, Gandara DR, Graziano SLet al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer (E1505): An open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology 2017; 18(12):1610–23. pmid:29129443

27. Wu Y-L, Cheng Y, Zhou X, Lee KH, Nakagawa K, Niho Set al. Dacomitinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment for patients with EGFR -mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (ARCHER 1050): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Oncology 2017; 18(11):1454–66. pmid:28958502

28. Kohno S, Koga H, Oka M, Kadota J, Kaku M, Soda Het al. The pattern of respiratory infection in patients with lung cancer. Tohoku J Exp Med 1994; 173(4):405–11. pmid:7825174

29. Perlin E, Bang KM, Shah A, Hursey PD, Whittingham WL, Hashmi Ket al. The impact of pulmonary infections on the survival of lung cancer patients. Cancer 1990; 66(3):593–6. pmid:2364370

30. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz. IfSG—Gesetz zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten beim Menschen; 2019 [cited 2019 Jul 22]. Available from: URL: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/ifsg/BJNR104510000.html.

31. Robert Koch Institut. Hygienemaßnahmen bei Infektionen oder Besiedlung mit multiresistenten gramnegativen Stäbchen. Empfehlung der Kommission für Kranken-haushygiene und Infektionsprävention (KRINKO) beim Robert Koch-Institut (RKI). Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 2012; 55(10):1311–54.

32. Reinheimer C, Kempf VAJ, Jozsa K, Wichelhaus TA, Hogardt M, O’Rourke Fet al. Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms in refugee patients, medical tourists and domestic patients admitted to a German university hospital. BMC Infect Dis 2017; 17(1):223. pmid:28335752

33. Reinheimer C, Kempf VAJ, Göttig S, Hogardt M, Wichelhaus TA, O’Rourke Fet al. Multidrug-resistant organisms detected in refugee patients admitted to a University Hospital, Germany June‒December 2015. Eurosurveillance 2016; 21(2):30110. pmid:26794850

34. Göttig S, Gruber TM, Stecher B, Wichelhaus TA, Kempf VAJ. In vivo horizontal gene transfer of the carbapenemase OXA-48 during a nosocomial outbreak. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60(12):1808–15. pmid:25759432

35. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1999; 94(446):496.

36. Papadimitriou-Olivgeris M, Drougka E, Fligou F, Kolonitsiou F, Liakopoulos A, Dodou Vet al. Risk factors for enterococcal infection and colonization by vancomycin-resistant enterococci in critically ill patients. Infection 2014; 42(6):1013–22. pmid:25143193

37. Briongos-Figuero LS, Gómez-Traveso T, Bachiller-Luque P, Domínguez-Gil González M, Gómez-Nieto A, Palacios-Martín Tet al. Epidemiology, risk factors and comorbidity for urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing enterobacteria. Int J Clin Pract 2012; 66(9):891–6. pmid:22897466

38. Zaas AK, Song X, Tucker P, Perl TM. Risk factors for development of vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bloodstream infection in patients with cancer who are colonized with vancomycin-resistant enterococci. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 35(10):1139–46. pmid:12410472

39. Thaiss CA, Levy M, Grosheva I, Zheng D, Soffer E, Blacher Eet al. Hyperglycemia drives intestinal barrier dysfunction and risk for enteric infection. Science 2018; 359(6382):1376–83. pmid:29519916

40. Hamprecht A, Rohde AM, Behnke M, Feihl S, Gastmeier P, Gebhardt Fet al. Colonization with third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae on hospital admission: Prevalence and risk factors. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71(10):2957–63. pmid:27317445

41. Boldt A-C, Schwab F, Rohde AM, Kola A, Bui MT, Märtin Net al. Admission prevalence of colonization with third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and subsequent infection rates in a German university hospital. PLoS One 2018; 13(8):e0201548. pmid:30067833

42. Remschmidt C, Behnke M, Kola A, Peña Diaz LA, Rohde AM, Gastmeier Pet al. The effect of antibiotic use on prevalence of nosocomial vancomycin-resistant enterococci- an ecologic study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017; 6:95. pmid:28924472

43. Wendt C, Lin D, Baum H von. Risk factors for colonization with third-generation cephalosporin-resistant enterobacteriaceae. Infection 2005; 33(5–6):327–32. pmid:16258862

44. Kaspar T, Schweiger A, Droz S, Marschall J. Colonization with resistant microorganisms in patients transferred from abroad: Who needs to be screened? Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015; 4:31. pmid:26213620

45. Young BE, Lye DC, Krishnan P, Chan SP, Leo YS. A prospective observational study of the prevalence and risk factors for colonization by antibiotic resistant bacteria in patients at admission to hospital in Singapore. BMC Infect Dis 2014; 14:298. pmid:24889720

46. DiazGranados CA, Zimmer SM, Klein M, Jernigan JA. Comparison of mortality associated with vancomycin-resistant and vancomycin-susceptible enterococcal bloodstream infections: A meta-analysis. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41(3):327–33. pmid:16007529

47. Luna HIR, Pankey G. The Utility of Blood Culture in Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Ochsner J 2001; 3(2):85–93. pmid:21765724

48. Yoo SS, Cha S-I, Shin K-M, Lee S-Y, Kim C-H, Park J-Y et al. Bacterial pneumonia following cytotoxic chemotherapy for lung cancer: Clinical features, treatment outcome and prognostic factors. Scand J Infect Dis 2010; 42(10):734–40. pmid:20524784

49. Radu DM, Jaureguy F, Seguin A, Foulon C, Destable MD, Azorin Jet al. Postoperative pneumonia after major pulmonary resections: An unsolved problem in thoracic surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 2007; 84(5):1669–73. pmid:17954082

50. Schussler O, Alifano M, Dermine H, Strano S, Casetta A, Sepulveda Set al. Postoperative pneumonia after major lung resection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 173(10):1161–9. pmid:16474029

51. Ye M, Gu X, Han Y, Jin M, Ren T. Gram-negative bacteria facilitate tumor outgrowth and metastasis by promoting lipid synthesis in lung cancer patients. J Thorac Dis 2016; 8(8):1943–55. pmid:27621846

52. Chow SC, Gowing SD, Cools-Lartigue JJ, Chen CB, Berube J, Yoon H-Wet al. Gram negative bacteria increase non-small cell lung cancer metastasis via Toll-like receptor 4 activation and mitogen-activated protein kinase phosphorylation. Int J Cancer 2015; 136(6):1341–50. pmid:25082668

53. Mao Q, Jiang F, Yin R, Wang J, Xia W, Dong G et al. Interplay between the lung microbiome and lung cancer. Cancer Lett 2018; 415:40–8. pmid:29197615

54. Pires J, Kraemer JG, Kuenzli E, Kasraian S, Tinguely R, Hatz Cet al. Gut microbiota dynamics in travelers returning from India colonized with extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: A longitudinal study. Travel Med Infect Dis 2018. pmid:30339827

55. Singh R, Groot PF de, Geerlings SE, Hodiamont CJ, Belzer C, Berge IJMTet al. Fecal microbiota transplantation against intestinal colonization by extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae: A proof of principle study. BMC Res Notes 2018; 11(1):190. pmid:29566738

56. Routy B, Le Chatelier E, Derosa L, Duong CPM, Alou MT, Daillère Ret al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science 2018; 359(6371):91–7. pmid:29097494

57. Swami U, Zakharia Y, Zhang J. Understanding Microbiome Effect on Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Lung Cancer: Placing the Puzzle Pieces Together. J Immunother 2018; 41(8):359–60. pmid:29781826

58. Gui Q-F, Lu H-F, Zhang C-X, Xu Z-R, Yang Y-H. Well-balanced commensal microbiota contributes to anti-cancer response in a lung cancer mouse model. Genet Mol Res 2015; 14(2):5642–51. pmid:26125762

59. Daillère R, Vétizou M, Waldschmitt N, Yamazaki T, Isnard C, Poirier-Colame Vet al. Enterococcus hirae and Barnesiella intestinihominis Facilitate Cyclophosphamide-Induced Therapeutic Immunomodulatory Effects. Immunity 2016; 45(4):931–43. pmid:27717798

60. Derosa L, Hellmann MD, Spaziano M, Halpenny D, Fidelle M, Rizvi Het al. Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol 2018; 29(6):1437–44. pmid:29617710

61. Göttig S, Riedel-Christ S, Saleh A, Kempf VAJ, Hamprecht A. Impact of blaNDM-1 on fitness and pathogenicity of Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2016; 47(6):430–5. pmid:27179815

62. Werner G, Coque TM, Hammerum AM, Hope R, Hryniewicz W, Johnson Aet al. Emergence and spread of vancomycin resistance among enterococci in Europe. Eurosurveillance 2008; 13(47):19046. pmid:19021959

63. Willems RJL, Top J, van Santen M, Robinson DA, Coque TM, Baquero Fet al. Global spread of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium from distinct nosocomial genetic complex. Emerging Infect Dis 2005; 11(6):821–8. pmid:15963275

64. Willems RJL, Bonten MJM. Glycopeptide-resistant enterococci: Deciphering virulence, resistance and epidemicity. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2007; 20(4):384–90. pmid:17609597

65. Leavis HL, Willems RJL, van Wamel WJB, Schuren FH, Caspers MPM, Bonten MJM. Insertion sequence-driven diversification creates a globally dispersed emerging multiresistant subspecies of E. faecium. PLoS Pathog 2007; 3(1):e7. pmid:17257059

66. Rice LB, Carias L, Rudin S, Vael C, Goossens H, Konstabel Cet al. A potential virulence gene, hylEfm, predominates in Enterococcus faecium of clinical origin. J Infect Dis 2003; 187(3):508–12. pmid:12552437

67. Willems RJL, Homan W, Top J, van Santen-Verheuvel M, Tribe D, Manzioros Xet al. Variant esp gene as a marker of a distinct genetic lineage of vancomycinresistant Enterococcus faecium spreading in hospitals. The Lancet 2001; 357(9259):853–5.

68. Guenther S, Bethe A, Fruth A, Semmler T, Ulrich RG, Wieler LHet al. Frequent combination of antimicrobial multiresistance and extraintestinal pathogenicity in Escherichia coli isolates from urban rats (Rattus norvegicus) in Berlin, Germany. PLoS One 2012; 7(11):e50331. pmid:23189197

69. Liss BJ, Vehreschild JJ, Cornely OA, Hallek M, Fatkenheuer G, Wisplinghoff Het al. Intestinal colonisation and blood stream infections due to vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBLE) in patients with haematological and oncological malignancies. Infection 2012; 40(6):613–9. pmid:22665143

70. Hefazi M, Damlaj M, Alkhateeb HB, Partain DK, Patel R, Razonable RRet al. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization and bloodstream infection: Prevalence, risk factors, and the impact on early outcomes after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Transpl Infect Dis 2016; 18(6):913–20. pmid:27642723

71. Webb BJ, Healy R, Majers J, Burr Z, Gazdik M, Lopansri Bet al. Prediction of Bloodstream Infection Due to Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus in Patients Undergoing Leukemia Induction or Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 64(12):1753–9. pmid:28369204