Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium
EORTC/MSGERC · 2019 · Europe
Source and licence
- Authors
- J Peter Donnelly, Sharon C Chen, Carol A Kauffman et al.
- Title
- Revision and Update of the Consensus Definitions of Invasive Fungal Disease From the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium
- Journal
- Clinical Infectious Diseases: An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, 2019
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0
- Changes
- Verbatim excerpts; formatting adapted
Full text retrieved 2026-10-27 from Europe PMC · PMC7486838
Licence statement of the original publication
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
This page reproduces excerpts of the original publication; the original is authoritative. It has not been reviewed by a physician, does not state a recommendation of Medelix and does not replace medical advice. The guideline may have been updated since.
Open the original publication →Full text on Europe PMC
Recommendations
We found no explicitly labelled recommendations in this publication; its recommendations are in the running text of the original.
Abstract
Background: Invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) remain important causes of morbidity and mortality. The consensus definitions of the Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group have been of immense value to researchers who conduct clinical trials of antifungals, assess diagnostic tests, and undertake epidemiologic studies. However, their utility has not extended beyond patients with cancer or recipients of stem cell or solid organ transplants. With newer diagnostic techniques available, it was clear that an update of these definitions was essential.
Methods: To achieve this, 10 working groups looked closely at imaging, laboratory diagnosis, and special populations at risk of IFD. A final version of the manuscript was agreed upon after the groups’ findings were presented at a scientific symposium and after a 3-month period for public comment. There were several rounds of discussion before a final version of the manuscript was approved.
Results: There is no change in the classifications of “proven,” “probable,” and “possible” IFD, although the definition of “probable” has been expanded and the scope of the category “possible” has been diminished. The category of proven IFD can apply to any patient, regardless of whether the patient is immunocompromised. The probable and possible categories are proposed for immunocompromised patients only, except for endemic mycoses.
Conclusions: These updated definitions of IFDs should prove applicable in clinical, diagnostic, and epidemiologic research of a broader range of patients at high-risk.
Contents of the original publication
The section headings of the original.
- PROCESS
- REVISIONS AND UPDATES
- Special Populations
- Diagnostic Tests and Imaging
- Other Disease Entities
- Proven Invasive Fungal Disease
- Probable Invasive Fungal Disease
- Possible Invasive Fungal Disease
- GENERAL POINTS
- CONCLUSIONS
- Notes
A question about this guideline?
Medelix answers clinical questions from guidelines and studies – every statement with its source.
Are you the rights holder and object to this reproduction? Write to contact@medelix.ai and we will take the page down promptly. Imprint