Patients with AIDS-defining cancers are not universally screened for HIV: a 10-year retrospective analysis of HIV-testing practices in a Swiss university hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), invasive cervical carcinoma (ICC) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have been listed as AIDS-defining cancers (ADCs) by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 1993. Despite this, HIV screening is not universally mentioned in ADC treatment guidelines. We examined screening practices at a tertiary centre serving a population where HIV seroprevalence is 0.4%. METHODS: Patients with KS, ICC, NHL and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), treated at Lausanne University Hospital between January 2002 and July 2012, were studied retrospectively. HIV testing was considered part of the oncology work-up if performed between 90 days before and 90 days after the cancer diagnosis date. RESULTS: A total of 880 patients were examined: 10 with KS, 58 with ICC, 672 with NHL and 140 with HL. HIV testing rates were 100, 11, 60 and 59%, and HIV seroprevalence was 60, 1.7, 3.4 and 5%, respectively. Thirty-seven patients (4.2%) were HIV-positive, of whom eight (22%) were diagnosed at oncology work-up. All newly diagnosed patients had CD4 counts < 200 cells/µL and six (75%) had presented to a physician 12-236 weeks previously with conditions warranting HIV testing. CONCLUSIONS: In our institution, only patients with KS were universally screened. Screening rates for other cancers ranged from 11 to 60%. HIV seroprevalence was at least fourfold higher than the population average. As HIV-positive status impacts on cancer patient medical management, HIV screening should be included in oncology guidelines. Further, we recommend that opt-out screening should be adopted in all patients with ADCs and HL.

Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Switzerland: first experience with species-specific treatment.

BACKGROUND: Different species of the genus Leishmania can cause cutaneous (CL) and mucosal leishmaniasis (ML). PCR-based tests allow a rapid diagnosis and determination of the species, thereby enabling species-oriented treatment. Such treatment procedures have not been evaluated to date. METHODS: Patients presenting with CL and ML between 1999 and 2011 were analysed retrospectively. PCR technology was used to diagnose the disease and identify the protozoan to the species level. RESULTS: A total of 61 cases were reviewed, including 58 patients with CL and three patients with ML. Treatment was effective in most patients. Treatment failure was reported in six patients with L. panamensis (one fluconazole, one ketoconazole), L. infantum (one excision, one fluconazole), L. tropica (one paromomycin/methylbenzethonium), L. braziliensis (1 paromomycin/methylbenzethonium). In 11 (18 %) patients treatment had to be interrupted due to adverse events, and in eight patients (13 %) a second treatment had to be applied. Treatment with meglumine antimoniate had to be interrupted in six patients, with QTc prolongation the reason for the interruption in three patients. CONCLUSIONS: Species-related, targeted treatment resulted in good responses in CL and ML lesions. Treatment recommendations for L. panamensis were changed from ketoconazole to miltefosine because of new evidence of treatment failures. Meglumine antimoniate should be restricted to species with poor response to alternative medications and should be used with caution in patients older than 60 years because of its toxicity. Treatment in immunosuppressed patients was successful, but relapses were observed when the immune system could not be restored. This is the first report on L. aethiopica from Egypt.