Abstract
Purpose
Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of diarrhoea in hospitalised patients. Cancer populations are at high-risk for infection, but comprehensive evaluation in the current era of cancer care has not been performed. The objective of this study was to describe characteristics, risk factors, and outcomes of CDI in cancer patients.
Methods
Fifty consecutive patients with CDI at a large Australian cancer centre (2013–2015) were identified from the hospital pathology database. Each case was matched by ward and hospital admission date to three controls without toxigenic CDI. Treatment and outcomes of infection were evaluated and potential risk factors were analysed using conditional logistic regression.
Results
Patients with CDI had a mean age of 59.7 years and 74% had an underlying solid tumour. Healthcare-associated infection comprised 80% of cases. Recurrence occurred in 10, and 12% of cases were admitted to ICU within 30 days. Severe or severe-complicated infection was observed in 32%. Independent risk factors for infection included chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 3.82, 95% CI 1.67–8.75; p = 0.002), gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery (OR 4.64, 95% CI 1.20–17.91; p = 0.03), proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.05–5.80; p = 0.04), and days of antibiotic therapy (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01–1.08; p = 0.02).
Conclusions
Severe or complicated infections are frequent in patients with cancer who develop CDI. Receipt of chemotherapy, gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery, PPI therapy, and antibiotic exposure contribute to infection risk. More effective CDI therapy for cancer patients is required and dedicated antibiotic stewardship programs in high-risk cancer populations are needed to ameliorate infection risk.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is the leading cause of healthcare-associated diarrhoea. Patients with malignancy are at increased risk of developing infection, with CDI incidence in some cancer populations estimated to be approximately twofold higher than general hospital patients [1]. CDI may develop as a complication of cancer treatment and may limit cancer care, including delayed delivery of cancer therapies and the need to manage inter-current infections. Additional infection prevention measures, such as patient isolation/cohorting, are required for optimal control in healthcare settings.
In the setting of increasing global incidence of hypervirulent C. difficile strains (e.g. B1/NAP1/027) [2], contemporary studies of CDI in cancer populations have focussed upon clusters or outbreaks, or have included haematopoietic stem cell transplantation populations only [3–14]. However, the epidemiology of CDI in Australia is such that a broad range of strain types are responsible for endemic disease [15–17]. Evaluation of risk factors is necessary in the setting of new chemotherapeutic agents with gastrointestinal toxicities and across a range of underlying malignant conditions. Further, identification of high-risk patients would inform future infection prevention strategies.
Given the need for CDI risks and outcomes to be evaluated in Australian patients receiving current-era cancer therapies, a matched case-control study was conducted at a large tertiary cancer centre with the following objectives: (i) to describe the clinical characteristics of cancer patients acquiring CDI, (ii) to determine risk factors for CDI in cancer patients, and (iii) to evaluate outcomes of CDI in cancer patients.
Methods
Setting
The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (PMCC) is an Australian tertiary referral centre providing treatment for a broad range of malignant conditions. A single microbiology laboratory provides diagnostic services for investigation of inpatients and patients managed in ambulatory-care settings. During the study period, a hospital-wide antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) program was operational, with antimicrobial approvals, post-prescription review by a pharmacist or infectious diseases physician, and a standardised clinical pathway for identification and management of sepsis.
Case and control ascertainment
Patients with CDI were identified from a laboratory data extract for the period from May 2013 to May 2015. A matched case-control study was performed to evaluate risks for CDI in cancer patients. The number of cases was determined a priori to be 50, and a 1:3 ratio of cases to controls was used as the optimal means of achieving precision [18].
A case was defined as any PMCC patient who had confirmation of toxigenic C. difficile in a diarrhoeal specimen. If multiple infections had been confirmed for a single patient, only the first CDI episode was analysed. Cases were identified retrospectively and were sequentially selected according to specimen collection dates from May 2013, until a total of 50 cases had been identified.
A control patient was defined as having no diarrhoea or having diarrhoea and testing negative for toxigenic C. difficile. Controls were matched by ward and time to respective cases.
Diagnostic criteria
Liquid or unformed stool specimens were tested for C. difficile, consistent with diagnostic guidelines of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America/Infectious Diseases Society of America (SHEA/IDSA) and surveillance criteria employed in Australia [15, 19]. To identify toxigenic C. difficile isolates, a 3-step diagnostic algorithm was applied. All loose/liquid stool specimens referred for C. difficile testing were analysed for the presence of the GDH antigen using the Immunocard® C. difficile Glutamate Dehydrogenase Antigen (GDH) Antigen EIA assay (Meridian Bioscience, Inc.). GDH positive specimens were tested using the illumigene® C. difficile assay (LAMP – illumigene, Meridian Bioscience, Inc.). Any specimen with discordant results in the previous two steps or illumigene positive results was referred to the state-wide reference laboratory for nucleic acid amplification testing and ribotyping.
Definitions
Consistent with national surveillance methods [20, 21], CDI cases were classified according to the following criteria: ‘Healthcare facility (HCF)-associated, HCF-onset’–symptom onset >48 h after admission to HCF; ‘HCF-associated, community-onset’–symptom onset within community or within 48 h of admission to HCF, providing onset was within 4 weeks of last discharge from HCF; ‘community-associated’–symptom onset in community or within 48 h of admission to HCF providing last admission to HCF was >12 weeks ago; or ‘indeterminate’–symptom onset did not fulfil above criteria.
CDI recurrence was defined as an episode of CDI occurring within 8 weeks of onset of a previous episode, provided the previous infection had clinically resolved.
Severity of illness was classified according to SHEA/ISDA criteria: ‘mild-moderate’, ‘severe’, and ‘severe complicated’ [22]. Infections were classified as ‘severe’ in the presence of a recorded WCC >15,000/μL OR serum creatinine >1.5 times baseline. ‘Severe complicated’ infections were defined in the presence of hypotension, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), or presence of pseudomembranes on colonoscopy.
Data collection
A standardised data collection tool was used to record patient demographics, comorbidities, potential CDI risk factors, severity, and outcomes. Exposure variables recorded for the 30 days prior to the specimen collection date included the following: administration of H2-receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), laxatives, enemas, steroids, and immunosuppressive agents (tacrolimus, mycophenolate, cyclosporin, methotrexate, TNFα inhibitors, rituximab, vorinostat, mTOR inhibitors, etanercept, alemtuzumab, extracorporeal photophoresis, steroid therapy amounting to >0.5 mg/kg prednisolone equivalents daily), and antibiotic therapy (agent/s administered and dates). The following were also recorded if present on the index date: intercurrent infections, antibiotic therapy, and WHO mucositis grading [23].
Severity markers were captured on the specimen collection date or during the 48-h period after this date if no data were available on the specimen date. Biochemical markers included serum creatinine, serum albumin, and white cell count. The lowest serum creatinine recording for the previous 60 days was recorded as baseline. Clinical severity measures included highest recorded temperature, hypotension (systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg), presence of criteria for SIRS (defined as two or more of the following: temperature of >38 °C or <36 °C, heart rate >90/min, respiratory rate >20/min, white cell count >12,000/μL), and sepsis (defined as SIRS plus microbiological identification of infection).
The following outcomes and treatment-related factors were recorded: 30-day all-cause mortality, admission to ICU within 30 days, and CDI recurrence. Cause of death, death attributed to CDI, unplanned readmission within 30 days, change in cancer treatment intent following diarrhoeal episode, surgery for complications of CDI, treatment for CDI, and response to treatment at 10-days post specimen collection date were recorded.
Ethics approval
Approval for the study was obtained from the PMCC Human Research Ethics Committee (No. 16/33R).
Statistical analysis
Univariate conditional logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios (ORs) for individual risk factors potentially associated with C. difficile. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine adjusted odds ratios. Potential risk factors with a p value of <0.20 on univariate analysis were included stepwise in the multivariate model. All analyses were performed using RStudio Version 0.99.902 (RStudio, Inc., Boston, MA, USA).
Results
Fifty cases of CDI fulfilled criteria for study inclusion, comprising 33 unique strains of C. difficile with no infections caused by the B1/NAP1/027 strain. Of these cases, 40 were healthcare-associated, nine were community-associated and one was of indeterminate source. In 74% of cases, the underlying malignancy was a solid tumour and infection occurred at a median of 5.5 days (range 0–24 days) following hospital admission. Twenty-eight of the 50 cases (56%) were aged 60–80 years. Characteristics of cases are summarised in Table 1. During the study period, the rate of healthcare-associated CDI episodes was 6.1 (95% confidence interval 4.7–7.7) per 10,000 occupied bed days.
Baseline characteristics, including underlying disease and prior healthcare contact, were comparable in case (N = 50) and control groups (N = 150) (Table 1). Exposure to cancer and other therapies with potential to influence CDI risk is summarised for cases and controls in Table 2. Antibiotic and chemotherapy exposure in the previous 30 days were significantly higher in cases than controls, and laxative therapy was more frequently administered to control patients (Table 2). Penicillins followed by cephalosporins were the most commonly prescribed antibiotics, administered in 60 and 40% of CDI cases, respectively. Fluoroquinolone exposure in cases was low (12%). Piperacillin-tazobactam was prescribed in 42% of cases. Antibiotic exposure was high in the subgroup of patients who had gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery—91.6% received antibiotics (median 9 antibiotic days of therapy (DOT), range 0–34 DOT). In comparison, 69.5% of all other patients received antibiotics (median 4.5 antibiotic DOT, range 0–49 DOT). PPIs were prescribed for 80% of cases and 66.7% of control patients. Cases received the following cancer therapies: radiotherapy (20%), surgery (30%), and chemotherapy (68%).
The majority of patients with CDI (68%) had ‘mild-moderate’ disease, while 16% were classified as ‘severe’, and 16% as ‘severe complicated’. All patients classified as having ‘severe’ or ‘severe complicated’ disease had a healthcare-associated infection.
Metronidazole was the most commonly administered monotherapy for CDI treatment (N = 33, 66%). When combination therapy was used, this most frequently consisted of metronidazole with oral vancomycin (N = 14, 28%). Overall response to therapy was 75.5% (Table 3). Recurrent CDI developed in five cases (10%). One patient required surgery for C. difficile-related complications, and three subjects had a change in the treatment intent for their cancer following infection. Six patients (12%) were admitted to ICU within 30 days of CDI, and the 30-day all-cause mortality rate for CDI cases was 16%.
The following variables were significantly associated with CDI on univariate analysis: chemotherapy within the previous 30 days, gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery within the previous 30 days, autologous stem cell transplantation within the previous 30 days, antibiotic therapy within the previous 30 days, and antibiotic DOT. Chemotherapy (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.67–8.75; p = 0.002), gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery (OR 4.64, 95% CI 1.20–17.91; p = 0.03), antibiotic DOT (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01–1.08; p = 0.02), and PPI therapy (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.05–5.80; p = 0.04), were retained as independent risk factors for CDI on multivariate analysis. Crude and adjusted odds ratios for developing CDI are provided in Table 4.
Discussion
Identification of risk factors for CDI in cancer patients is an important step to enable targeting of preventative measures. Previous studies have analysed risk factors for CDI within general hospital populations or within haematology patients [24]. The current study, however, evaluated risks and outcomes of CDI across the spectrum of malignant conditions. Importantly, we identified patients undergoing gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery, and those receiving chemotherapy, PPI therapy, or antibiotics in the previous 30 days as being at significantly higher risk for developing CDI.
Findings of this study demonstrate the burden of illness associated with CDI in cancer patients. In patients with CDI, relapse of infection was observed in 10, and 12% of patients required admission to ICU within 30 days of infection. We also observed moderate response to standard therapy (75.5% overall), acknowledging that severe disease predisposes to refractory infection, and that a large proportion of studied patients had mild disease. Recurrence has previously been reported in 11% of patients undergoing haematopoietic stem cell transplantation, [6], and this is consistent with outcomes observed in our study. Notably, fidaxomicin and faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have been shown to be efficacious for treatment of CDI in cancer populations [25, 26]. However, fidaxomicin was not routinely available at our centre during the study period, and only one patient underwent FMT. Our findings therefore apply predominantly to patients managed with metronidazole and/or vancomycin therapy.
We observed a range of severity of CDI illness, spanning mild disease (68%) to severe or complicated infection (32%). Grading of CDI severity is challenging because accepted tools for scoring have not generally been developed or validated in cancer populations [24]. Previously, severe disease has been reported variably (2–57%), depending on the underlying cancer diagnoses in studied populations [3, 4]. Consistent with our findings, a recent study of haematology/oncology patients reported severe illness in 19.7% of CDI episodes and ICU admission in 6.6% of cases [27]. Furthermore, five patients in our study required admission to ICU, and one patient required surgery, underscoring the severity of illness in this high-risk cohort.
With respect to antibiotic exposure, we observed each day of cumulative antibiotic therapy to incur an approximate 4% increase in the odds for development of CDI. This effect is likely to be multiplied if numerous antibiotics are administered and highlights the importance of antibiotic stewardship for patients with cancer, where agents may be concurrently administered for prophylaxis and treatment. Previously reported risks for developing CDI include increasing cumulative dose, number of antibiotics, and days of antibiotic exposure [28]. Looking ahead, antibiotic stewardship programs in cancer populations must determine if early review of therapy to facilitate timely cessation can be employed to reduce CDI risk associated with cumulative antibiotic exposure. This is consistent with recommendations provided by the SHEA/IDSA for implementing antibiotic stewardship programs generally in hospitalised patients [29].
Non-antibiotic pharmacotherapy in cancer patients also contributes to risk for developing CDI. Receipt of chemotherapy has previously been reported as a risk for CDI [11, 12, 30–33], and our findings confirm these reports. Two large meta-analyses in general hospital patient populations have demonstrated an association between gastric acid suppression and the development of CDI [34, 35]. Studies in cancer populations, however, have demonstrated an inconsistent relationship. For example, Alonso et al. and Garzotto et al. found that PPI use was protective, while Liu et al. demonstrated that chronic gastric acid suppression was associated with risk for developing CDI [5, 10, 14]. Our findings support the latter study, confirming an association between CDI risk and PPI use in cancer populations. Notably, the AMS program at our centre did not include review of PPI therapy during the study period. Given the high prevalence of PPI use in patients with malignancy [36], further evaluation of indications for PPI prescribing is required to determine if there is a role for rationalising PPI therapy to mitigate CDI risk. Future AMS programs for cancer patients should incorporate review of PPI indications with cessation in the absence of a documented clinical indication, in order to reduce CDI risk.
Our observation that gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery was associated with development of CDI in patients with malignancy has not previously been reported. In our series, the most frequently performed surgical procedures prior to onset of CDI included laparotomy with hyperthermic intraperitoneal mitomycin C and IV 5-fluorouracil (5/13 cases), gastro-oesophageal procedures (3/13 cases), and cystectomy with formation of ileal conduit (2/13 cases). Although absolute numbers were limited in the current study, these surgical populations reflect high-risk groups for targeting of clinician education/awareness and early identification of CDI. For these high-risk patients, clinicians should commence empiric CDI therapy while awaiting diagnostic results for C. difficile.
Prior studies of upper and lower gastrointestinal surgical procedures for malignancy have reported variable rates of CDI (0–6.8%) [37], with significantly increased mortality and prolonged hospitalisation in the presence of infection [38]. During the study period, guidelines at our centre recommended the use of cefoxitin or cefazolin plus metronidazole for prophylaxis prior to gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery. Others have shown that pre-operative prophylactic antibiotic exposure per se does not contribute to risk for developing CDI [39]. We observed a median of 9 days of antibiotic exposure in patients who underwent gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgical procedures, which far exceeds recommendations for prophylactic regimens (24–48 h). Inappropriately extended post-operative antibiotic courses contributing to infection risk should therefore be a focus for AMS programs.
Limitations of our study include the retrospective study design, common to all case-control studies. Although detailed review of medical records was conducted, some clinical indices (e.g. mucositis grading) were difficult to assess retrospectively, being reliant upon adequacy of documentation. Antibiotics prescribed by clinicians outside of the study centre were not routinely recorded, meaning that our data may be an under-estimate of true antibiotic exposure. Our study was also limited in size, preventing meaningful comparison of CDI according to individual disease, chemotherapy, or antibiotic classes. Single-centre experience may not be applicable to all centres managing patients with cancer. In particular, the context for our study was endemic C. difficile, unrelated to an outbreak or predominant hypervirulent clone, and the majority of patients (83%) managed at PMCC during the study period had solid tumours. A small number of cases (n = 5) were not able to be followed to determine response to therapy, and this may have contributed to reporting bias in study outcomes. Laboratory diagnosis of CDI at our centre employed GDH antigen detection as a sensitive screen, followed by DNA amplification assay to detect the presence of a toxigenic strain. False negative results are negligible when this approach is taken, although this algorithm may result in enhanced case-detection compared to instances where stool culture (not routinely used at our centre) is used for diagnosis. Notwithstanding these limitations, findings are relevant to the current era of cancer therapy and provide insights into CDI epidemiology and burden of illness.
Conclusions
C. difficile infection is an important cause of diarrhoea in patients with malignant disorders, with severe or complicated infections comprising a significant burden of illness. Non-modifiable risk factors associated with infection include receipt of chemotherapy and gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery; modifiable risk factors include proton pump inhibitor therapy and antibiotic exposure. Study outcomes reveal the potential for risk stratification within the broad group of patients with malignancy and allow effective targeting of preventative measures. Our findings demonstrate the need for more effective CDI therapy in cancer patients and support the need for dedicated antibiotic stewardship programs, especially in cancer patients requiring gastro-intestinal/abdominal surgery.
References
Kamboj M, Son C, Cantu S, Chemaly RF, Dickman J, Dubberke E, Engles L, Lafferty T, Liddell G, Lesperance ME, Mangino JE, Martin S, Mayfield J, Mehta SA, O’Rourke S, Perego CS, Taplitz R, Eagan J, Sepkowitz KA (2012) Hospital-onset Clostridium difficile infection rates in persons with cancer or hematopoietic stem cell transplant: a C3IC network report. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 33(11):1162–1165
Freeman J, Bauer MP, Baines SD, Corver J, Fawley WN, Goorhuis B, Kuijper EJ, Wilcox MH (2010) The changing epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections. Clin Microbiol Rev 23(3):529–549
Dubberke ER, Reske KA, Srivastava A, Sadhu J, Gatti R, Young RM, Rakes LC, Dieckgraefe B, DiPersio J, Fraser VJ (2010) Clostridium difficile-associated disease in allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients: risk associations, protective associations, and outcomes. Clin Transpl 24(2):192–198
Chopra T, Chandrasekar P, Salimnia H, Heilbrun LK, Smith D, Alangaden GJ (2011) Recent epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection during hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Transpl 25(1):E82–E87
Alonso CD, Treadway SB, Hanna DB, Huff CA, Neofytos D, Carroll KC, Marr KA (2012) Epidemiology and outcomes of Clostridium difficile infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Clin Infect Dis 54(8):1053–1063
Willems L, Porcher R, Lafaurie M, Casin I, Robin M, Xhaard A, Andreoli AL, Rodriguez-Otero P, Dhedin N, Socié G, Ribaud P, Peffault de Latour R (2012) Clostridium difficile infection after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 18(8):1295–1301
Krishna SG, Zhao W, Apewokin SK, Krishna K, Chepyala P, Anaissie EJ (2013) Risk factors, preemptive therapy, and antiperistaltic agents for Clostridium difficile infection in cancer patients. Transpl Infect Dis 15(5):493–501
Bruminhent J, Wang Z-X, Hu C, Wagner J, Sunday R, Bobik B, Hegarty S, Keith S, Alpdogan S, Carabasi M, Filicko-O’Hara J, Flomenberg N, Kasner M, Outschoorn UM, Weiss M, Flomenberg P (2014) Clostridium difficile colonization and disease in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 20(9):1329–1334
Jain T, Croswell C, Urday-Cornejo V, Awali R, Cutright J, Salimnia H, Reddy Banavasi HV, Liubakka A, Lephart P, Chopra T, Revankar SG, Chandrasekar P, Alangaden G (2016) Clostridium difficile colonization in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients: a prospective study of the epidemiology and outcomes involving toxigenic and nontoxigenic strains. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 22:157–163
Liu NW, Shatagopam K, Monn MF, Kaimakliotis HZ, Cary C, Boris RS, Mellon MJ, Masterson TA, Foster RS, Gardner TA, Bihrle R, House MG, Koch MO (2015) Risk for Clostridium difficile infection after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer: analysis of a contemporary series. Urol Oncol 33:503.e517–503.e522
Blot E, Escande MC, Besson D, Barbut F, Granpeix C, Asselain B, Falcou MC, Pouillart P (2003) Outbreak of Clostridium difficile-related diarrhoea in an adult oncology unit: risk factors and microbiological characteristics. J Hosp Infect 53(3):187–192
Han XH, Du CX, Zhang CL, Zheng CL, Wang L, Li D, Feng Y, DuPont HL, Jiang ZD, Shi YK (2013) Clostridium difficile infection in hospitalized cancer patients in Beijing, China is facilitated by receipt of cancer chemotherapy. Anaerobe 24:82–84
Kim J, Ward K, Shah N, Saenz C, McHale M, Plaxe S (2013) Excess risk of Clostridium difficile infection in ovarian cancer is related to exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics. Support Care Cancer 21(11):3103–3107
Rodríguez Garzotto A, Mérida García A, Muñoz Unceta N, Galera Lopez MM, Orellana-Miguel MÁ, Díaz-García CV, Cortijo-Cascajares S, Cortes-Funes H, Agulló-Ortuño MT (2015) Risk factors associated with Clostridium difficile infection in adult oncology patients. Support Care Cancer 23(6):1569–1577
Slimings C, Armstrong P, Beckingham WD, Bull AL, Hall L, Kennedy KJ, Marquess J, McCann R, Menzies A, Mitchell BG, Richards MJ, Smollen PC, Tracey L, Wilkinson IJ, Wilson FL, Worth LJ, Riley TV (2014) Increasing incidence of Clostridium difficile infection, Australia, 2011–2012. Med J Aust 200(5):272–276
Cheng AC, Collins DA, Elliott B, Ferguson JK, Paterson DL, Thean S, Riley TV (2016) Laboratory-based surveillance of Clostridium difficile circulating in Australia, September - November 2010. Pathology 48(3):257–260
Worth LJ, Spelman T, Bull AL, Brett JA, Richards MJ (2016) Epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infections in Australia: enhanced surveillance to evaluate time trends and severity of illness in Victoria, 2010-2014. J Hosp Infect 93(3):280–285
Wacholder S, Silverman DT, McLaughlin JK, Mandel JS (1992) Selection of controls in case-control studies. III Design options Am J Epidemiol 135(9):1042–1050
Dubberke ER, Carling P, Carrico R, Donskey CJ, Loo VG, McDonald LC, Maragakis LL, Sandora TJ, Weber DJ, Yokoe DS, Gerding DN (2014) Strategies to prevent Clostridium difficile infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 35:628–645
Bull AL, Worth LJ, Richards MJ (2012) Implementation of standardised surveillance for Clostridium difficile infections in Australia: initial report from the Victorian healthcare associated infection surveillance system. Intern Med J 42(6):715–718
McDonald LC, Coignard B, Dubberke E, Song X, Horan T, Kutty PK (2007) Recommendations for surveillance of Clostridium difficile–associated disease. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 28(02):140–145
Cohen S, Gerding D, Stuart J, Kelly C, Loo V, McDonald L, Pepin J, Wilcox M (2010) Clinical practice guidelines for Clostridium difficile infection in adults: 2010 update by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 31(5):431–455
World Health Organization (1979) Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. In: Geneva. World Health Organization, Switzerland, pp 15–22
Hebbard AIT, Slavin MA, Reed C, Teh BW, Thursky KA, Trubiano JA, Worth LJ (2016) The epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with cancer. Exp Rev Anti Infect Ther:DOI. doi:10.1080/14787210.14782016.11234376
Cornely OA, Miller MA, Fantin B, Mullane K, Kean Y, Gorbach S (2013) Resolution of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea in patients with cancer treated with fidaxomicin or vancomycin. J Clin Oncol 31(19):2493–2499
Trubiano JA, George A, Barnett J, Siwan M, Heriot A, Prince HM, Slavin MA, Teh BW (2015) A different kind of “allogeneic transplant”: successful fecal microbiota transplant for recurrent and refractory Clostridium difficile infection in a patient with relapsed aggressive B-cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma 56(2):512–514
Yoon YK, Kim MJ, Sohn JW, Kim HS, Choi YJ, Kim JS, Kim ST, Park KH, Kim SJ, Kim BS, Shin SW, Kim YH, Park Y (2014) Predictors of mortality attributable to Clostridium difficile infection in patients with underlying malignancy. Support Care Cancer 22(8):2039–2048
Stevens V, Dumyati G, Fine LS, Fisher SG, van Wijngaarden E (2011) Cumulative antibiotic exposures over time and the risk of Clostridium difficile infection. Clin Infect Dis 53(1):42–48
Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, MacDougall C, Schuetz AN, Septimus EJ, Srinivasan A, Dellit TH, Falck-Ytter YT, Fishman NO, Hamilton CW, Jenkins TC, Lipsett PA, Malani PN, May LS, Moran GJ, Neuhauser MM, Newland JG, Ohl CA, Samore MH, Seo SK, Trivedi KK (2016) Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis 62(10):e51–e77
Kamthan AG, Bruckner HW, Hirschman SZ, Agus SG (1992) Clostridium difficile diarrhea induced by cancer chemotherapy. Arch Intern Med 152(8):1715–1717
Nielsen H, Daugaard G, Tvede M, Bruun B (1992) High prevalence of Clostridium difficile diarrhoea during intensive chemotherapy for disseminated germ cell cancer. Brit J Cancer 66(4):666–667
Emoto M, Kawarabayashi T, Hachisuga T, Eguchi F, Shirakawa K (1996) Clostridium difficile colitis associated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Gynecol Oncol 61(3):369–372
Husain A, Aptaker L, Spriggs DR, Barakat RR (1998) Gastrointestinal toxicity and Clostridium difficile diarrhea in patients treated with paclitaxel-containing chemotherapy regimens. Gynecol Oncol 71(1):104–107
Kwok CS, Arthur AK, Anibueze CI, Singh S, Cavallazzi R, Loke YK (2012) Risk of Clostridium difficile infection with acid suppressing drugs and antibiotics: meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 107(7):1011–1019
Janarthanan S, Ditah I, Adler DG, Ehrinpreis MN (2012) Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea and proton pump inhibitor therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 107(7):1001–1010
McCaleb RV, Gandhi AS, Clark SM, Clemmons AB (2016) Clinical outcomes of acid suppressive therapy use in hematology/oncology patients at an academic medical center. Ann Pharmacother 50(7):541–547
Aquina CT, Probst CP, Becerra AZ, Hensley BJ, Iannuzzi JC, Noyes K, Monson JR, Fleming FJ (2016) High variability in nosocomial Clostridium difficile infection rates across hospitals after colorectal resection. Dis Colon rectum 59(4):323–331
Yasunaga H, Horiguchi H, Hashimoto H, Matsuda S, Fushimi K (2012) The burden of Clostridium difficile-associated disease following digestive tract surgery in Japan. J Hosp Infect 82(3):175–180
Abdelsattar ZM, Krapohl G, Alrahmani L, Banerjee M, Krell RW, Wong SL, Campbell DA, Aronoff DM, Hendren S (2015) Postoperative burden of hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 36(1):40–46
Acknowledgements
Authors acknowledge the assistance of Jennifer Breen, Kee Ming, Badal Bhatt and Malcolm Eaton for extraction of surveillance and laboratory data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Funding
No external funding was used for this study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hebbard, A.I., Slavin, M.A., Reed, C. et al. Risks factors and outcomes of Clostridium difficile infection in patients with cancer: a matched case-control study. Support Care Cancer 25, 1923–1930 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3606-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3606-y