Correction: Infections during AML induction chemotherapy in a contemporary cohort without fluoroquinolone prophylaxis
S. Ehrlich, J. Eufinger, N. Tahiri, V. Jurinovic, S. Mansournia, W. G. Kunz, J. Jung, T. Herold, M. Subklewe, V. Bücklein, M. von Bergwelt-Baildon, K. Spiekermann
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsNeutropenia and Cancer Infections · Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research · Lung Cancer Research Studies
Correction: Infection 10.1007/s15010-025-02651-4
The original text stated logistic regression was performed, while the original Table 6 showed hazard ratios stemming from an outdated version. Table 6 has been updated to correctly display the results from the Logistic Regression analysis.
Table 6. Risk factors for 30-day mortality. Univariate logistic regressionVariableComparisonOR (95% CI)p-valueAge ≥ 65 vs. < 655.53 (1.22–25.00)0.026ECOG ≥ 2 vs. < 26.92 (1.52–31.38)0.012ELN 2017Adverse vs. favorable & intermediate2.75 (0.58–13.06)0.202DiagnosissAML vs. de novo AML7.64 (1.67–34.98)0.009Microbiologically documented infectionYes vs. no1.89 (0.44–8.00)0.394Severe infection (treatment on IMC/ICU)Yes vs. no12.72 (2.67–60.76)0.012ELN European LeukemiaNET classification, AML acute myeloid leukemia, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, IMC intermediate care, ICU intensive care unit
The corresponding sentence in the section ‘Risk factors for early mortality and severe infections’ has been updated accordingly.
Table 3 has been revised to enhance clarity by providing a distinct differentiation between percentages calculated as ‘% of patients’ and ‘% of isolates’, which was previously ambiguous.
Table 3 Distribution of isolates in BSIN (%)Patients with BSI29 (28.2) Patients with CRBSI5 (4.9) Patients with > 1 BSI5 (4.9) Patients with polymicrobial bloodstream infection4 (3.9)Isolates from blood stream infections37Gram-positive (% of isolates)17 (45.9)Staphylococci6 Coagulase negative3 Linezolid-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis1 Staphylococcus aureus2Streptococci2Enterococci8 Enterococcus faecium4 Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium4 Corynebacterium amycolatum 1Gram-negative (% of isolates)17 (45.9)Enterobacteriaceae11 Escherichia coli9 Klebsiella spp.1 Enterobacter cloacae1Non-fermenting6 * Pseudomonas aeruginosa 4 * Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 2Fungi (% of isolates)3 (8.2) Candida glabrata (Nakaseomyces glabratus) 1 Saprochaete capitata 1 Fusarium solani 1Spp. Species, BSI bloodstream infection
We detected and corrected typographical errors: Removal of the unintentionally inserted text ‘Write “AML”’ in the section ‘Patients and Setting’, Table 2 (‘10^3^/L’ to ‘10^9^’), Table 5 (‘58.3%’ to ‘56.3%’).
We confirm that the scientific conclusions remain unchanged. The original article has been updated.