Management of herpesvirus reactivations in patients with solid tumours and hematologic malignancies: update of the Guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) on herpes simplex virus type 1, herpes simplex virus type 2, and varicella zoster virus.

Clinical reactivations of herpes simplex virus or varicella zoster virus occur frequently among patients with malignancies and manifest particularly as herpes simplex stomatitis in patients with acute leukaemia treated with intensive chemotherapy and as herpes zoster in patients with lymphoma or multiple myeloma. In recent years, knowledge on reactivation rates and clinical manifestations has increased for conventional chemotherapeutics as well as for many new antineoplastic agents. This guideline summarizes current evidence on herpesvirus reactivation in patients with solid tumours and hematological malignancies not undergoing allogeneic or autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or other cellular therapy including diagnostic, prophylactic, and therapeutic aspects. Particularly, strategies of risk adapted pharmacological prophylaxis and vaccination are outlined for different patient groups. This guideline updates the guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society for Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) from 2015 "Antiviral prophylaxis in patients with solid tumours and haematological malignancies" focusing on herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus.

Central venous catheter-related infections in hematology and oncology: 2020 updated guidelines on diagnosis, management, and prevention by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO).

Cancer patients frequently require central venous catheters for therapy and parenteral nutrition and are at high risk of central venous catheter-related infections (CRIs). Moreover, CRIs prolong hospitalization, cause an excess in resource utilization and treatment cost, often delay anti-cancer treatment, and are associated with a significant increase in mortality in cancer patients. We therefore summoned a panel of experts by the Infectious Diseases Working Party (AGIHO) of the German Society of Hematology and Medical Oncology (DGHO) and updated our previous guideline on CRIs in cancer patients. After conducting systematic literature searches on PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases, video- and meeting-based consensus discussions were held. In the presented guideline, we summarize recommendations on definition, diagnosis, management, and prevention of CRIs in cancer patients including the grading of strength of recommendations and the respective levels of evidence. This guideline supports clinicians and researchers alike in the evidence-based decision-making in the management of CRIs in cancer patients.

Essential barriers and considerations for the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures in oncological practice: contextualizing the results of a feasibility study with existing literature.

Aim: Monitoring electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) can provide various benefits to cancer patients, such as enhanced quality of life, reduction of hospital admissions, and even prolonged survival. Furthermore, ePRO might offer significant benefits to patients under antineoplastic treatment in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. However, evidence on feasibility of ePRO in routine cancer care and barriers met in a real-life setting remains limited. Subject and methods: We conducted a feasibility study among patients diagnosed with multiple myeloma currently under antineoplastic treatment. Patients filled out weekly ePRO questionnaires and were followed up for 6 months. In case of adverse events, an alert was sent to the clinic. We assessed uptake and adherence, as well as subjective perceptions of patients and clinic staff. A semi-structured literature review was conducted to contextualize results. Results: Eleven patients were recruited and followed up for 6 months. Overall adherence was found at a high level and remained stable throughout the study period. Feedback from patients was positive; however, clinic staff expressed disappointment and frustration, criticising an increase of workload while not perceiving any benefit to the oncological treatment. Both findings were backed by evidence we found in literature. Conclusions: Implementation of ePRO monitoring to routine cancer treatment seems to be feasible regarding patients' acceptance and compliance. However, integration of the tool into clinical workflow without increasing workload and deterring clinicians proves to be a major challenge. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-022-01767-3.

Herpes Zoster Vaccination Rates in Hematological and Oncological Patients-Stock Taking 2 Years after Market Approval.

BACKGROUND: Vaccinations have the potential to significantly lower the burden of disease for many major infections in the high-risk population of hematological and oncological patients. In this regard Shingrix®, an inactivated Varicella Zoster Virus vaccine, received market approval in the European Union in March 2018, after prior US approval in October 2017, and recommendations specifically state immunocompromised, including oncological, patients. As vaccination rates are considered to be poor in oncological patients, determining the current vaccination rates for Shingrix® two years after market approval is important in defining the need for intervention to bring this potentially high-impact vaccine to the patients. METHODS: We analyzed data of the EVO Study to provide data for Herpes zoster vaccination rates in oncological patients. The EVO Study was an interventional study evaluating the potential of increasing vaccination rates of specified must-have vaccinations by an instructional card in the oncological setting. Numbers presented in this publication merged baseline data and follow-up data of the control group; hence data not affected by the intervention. RESULTS: Data of 370 patients were analyzed; 21.1% with hematological malignancies and 78.9% with solid cancer. Only 3.0% were vaccinated with Shingrix®. Patients with hematological malignancy were more likely to be vaccinated than those with solid cancer (7.7 vs. 1.7%). CONCLUSION: Despite clear recommendations and a pressing need in the high-risk population of hematological and oncological patients, the vast majority of patients are still left without vaccine protection against Herpes zoster by Shingrix®.