Invasive candidiasis: comparison of management choices by infectious disease and critical care specialists.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the management of invasive candidiasis between infectious disease and critical care specialists. DESIGN AND SETTING: Clinical case scenarios of invasive candidiasis were presented during interactive sessions at national specialty meetings. Participants responded to questions using an anonymous electronic voting system. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-five infectious disease and 51 critical care physicians in Switzerland. RESULTS: Critical care specialists were more likely to ask advice from a colleague with expertise in the field of fungal infections to treat Candida glabrata (19.5% vs. 3.5%) and C. krusei (36.4% vs. 3.3%) candidemia. Most participants reported that they would change or remove a central venous catheter in the presence of candidemia, but 77.1% of critical care specialists would start concomitant antifungal treatment, compared to only 50% of infectious disease specialists. Similarly, more critical care specialists would start antifungal prophylaxis when Candida spp. are isolated from the peritoneal fluid at time of surgery for peritonitis resulting from bowel perforation (22.2% vs. 7.2%). The two groups equally considered Candida spp. as pathogens in tertiary peritonitis, but critical care specialists would more frequently use amphotericin B than fluconazole, caspofungin, or voriconazole. In mechanically ventilated patients the isolation of 10(4) Candida spp. from a bronchoalveolar lavage was considered a colonizing organism by 94.9% of infectious disease, compared to 46.8% of critical care specialists, with a marked difference in the use of antifungal agents (5.1% vs. 51%). CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight differences between management approaches for candidiasis in two groups of specialists, particularly in the reported use of antifungals.

Peritoneal Carcinomatosis in Primary Ovarian Cancer Staging: Comparison Between MDCT, MRI, and 18F-FDG PET/CT.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare multidetector CT (MDCT), MRI, and FDG PET/CT imaging for the detection of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) in ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifteen women with ovarian cancer and suspected PC underwent MDCT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT, shortly before surgery. Nine abdominopelvic regions were defined according to the peritoneal cancer index. We applied lesion size scores on MDCT and MR and measured FDG PET/CT standard uptake. We blindly read MDCT, MR, and PET/CT before joint review and comparison with histopathology. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed. RESULTS: Ten women had PC (67%). Altogether, 135 abdominopelvic sites were compared. Multidetector CT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT had a sensitivity of 96%, 98%, and 95%, and specificity was 92%, 84%, and 96%, respectively. Corresponding receiver operating characteristics area was 0.94, 0.90, and 0.96, respectively, without any significant differences between them (P = 0.12). FDG PET/CT detected supradiaphragmatic disease in 3 women (20%) not seen by MDCT or MRI. CONCLUSIONS: Although MRI had the highest sensitivity and FDG PET/CT had the highest specificity, no significant differences were found between the 3 techniques. Thus, MDCT, as the fastest, most economical, and most widely available modality, is the examination of choice, if a stand-alone technique is required. If inconclusive, PET/CT or MRI may offer additional insights. Whole-body FDG PET/CT may be more accurate for supradiaphragmatic metastatic extension.