Pineal anlage tumor: clinical and diagnostic features, and rationales for treatment

Purpose To provide a treatment-focused review and develop basic treatment guidelines for patients diagnosed with pineal anlage tumor (PAT). Methods Prospectively collected data of three patients with pineal anlage tumor from Germany was combined with clinical details and treatment information from 17 published cases. Results Overall, 20 cases of PAT were identified (3 not previously reported German cases, 17 cases from published reports). Age at diagnosis ranged from 0.3 to 35.0 (median: 3.2 ± 7.8) years. All but three cases were diagnosed before the age of three years. For three cases, metastatic disease at initial staging was described. All patients underwent tumor surgery (gross-total resection: 9, subtotal resection/biopsy: 9, extent of resection unknown: 2). 15/20 patients were alive at last follow-up. Median follow-up for 10/15 surviving patients with available follow-up and treatment data was 2.4 years (0.3–6.5). Relapse was reported for 3 patients within 0.8 years after diagnosis. Five patients died, 3 after relapse and 2 from early postoperative complications. Two-year-progression-free- and -overall survival were 65.2 ± 12.7% and 49.2 ± 18.2%, respectively. All 4 patients who received intensive chemotherapy including high-dose chemotherapy combined with radiotherapy (2 focal, 2 craniospinal [CSI]) had no recurrence. Focal radiotherapy- and CSI-free survival rates in 13 evaluable patients were 46.2% (6/13) and 61.5% (8/13), respectively. Conclusion PAT is an aggressive disease mostly affecting young children. Therefore, adjuvant therapy using intensive chemotherapy and considering radiotherapy appears to comprise an appropriate treatment strategy. Reporting further cases is crucial to evaluate distinct treatment strategies

Antimicrobial use in pediatric oncology and hematology in Germany and Austria, 2020/2021: a cross-sectional, multi-center point-prevalence study with a multi-step qualitative adjudication process

Background Due to the high risk of severe infection among pediatric hematology and oncology patients, antimicrobial use is particularly high. With our study, we quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated, based on institutional standards and national guidelines, antimicrobial usage by employing a point-prevalence survey with a multi-step, expert panel approach. We analyzed reasons for inappropriate antimicrobial usage. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted at 30 pediatric hematology and oncology centers in 2020 and 2021. Centers affiliated to the German Society for Pediatric Oncology and Hematology were invited to join, and an existing institutional standard was a prerequisite to participate. We included hematologic/oncologic inpatients under 19 years old, who had a systemic antimicrobial treatment on the day of the point prevalence survey. In addition to a one-day, point-prevalence survey, external experts individually assessed the appropriateness of each therapy. This step was followed by an expert panel adjudication based upon the participating centers’ institutional standards, as well as upon national guidelines. We analyzed antimicrobial prevalence rate, along with the rate of appropriate, inappropriate, and indeterminate antimicrobial therapies with regard to institutional and national guidelines. We compared the results of academic and non-academic centers, and performed a multinomial logistic regression using center- and patient-related data to identify variables that predict inappropriate therapy. Findings At the time of the study, a total of 342 patients were hospitalized at 30 hospitals, of whom 320 were included for the calculation of the antimicrobial prevalence rate. The overall antimicrobial prevalence rate was 44.4% (142/320; range 11.1–78.6%) with a median antimicrobial prevalence rate per center of 44.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 35.9–49.9). Antimicrobial prevalence rate was significantly higher (p < 0.001) at academic centers (median 50.0%; 95% CI 41.2–55.2) compared to non-academic centers (median 20.0%; 95% CI 11.0–32.4). After expert panel adjudication, 33.8% (48/142) of all therapies were labelled inappropriate based upon institutional standards, with a higher rate (47.9% [68/142]) when national guidelines were taken into consideration. The most frequent reasons for inappropriate therapy were incorrect dosage (26.2% [37/141]) and (de-)escalation/spectrum-related errors (20.6% [29/141]). Multinomial, logistic regression yielded the number of antimicrobial drugs (odds ratio, OR, 3.13, 95% CI 1.76–5.54, p < 0.001), the diagnosis febrile neutropenia (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06–0.51, p = 0.0015), and an existing pediatric antimicrobial stewardship program (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15–0.84, p = 0.019) as predictors of inappropriate therapy. Our analysis revealed no evidence of a difference between academic and non-academic centers regarding appropriate usage. Interpretation Our study revealed there to be high levels of antimicrobial usage at German and Austrian pediatric oncology and hematology centers with a significant higher number at academic centers. Incorrect dosing was shown to be the most frequent reason for inappropriate usage. Diagnosis of febrile neutropenia and antimicrobial stewardship programs were associated with a lower likelihood of inappropriate therapy. These findings suggest the importance of febrile neutropenia guidelines and guidelines compliance, as well as the need for regular antibiotic stewardship counselling at pediatric oncology and hematology centers. Funding European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pädiatrische Infektiologie, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Krankenhaushygiene, Stiftung Kreissparkasse Saarbrücken