Plasma cell-free DNA Next-Generation Sequencing has been used as a non-invasive and comprehensive method for the etiological diagnosis of infectious diseases. However, only a handful of studies have described the real-world utility of this technique in patients with hematological disorders, a cohort of patients that are distinctive due to neutropenia and weakened immune functions.

We retrospectively analyzed the results of plasma cell-free DNA sequencing performed on 184 and 163 specimens collected from hematological patients suspected of infections with (Group I) or without (Group II) neutropenia, respectively. The diagnostic performance and the clinical impact of plasma sequencing were comparatively evaluated to conventional microbiological tests and a composite reference standard (conventional tests combined with the clinical assessment).

The overall positive detection rate of plasma cell-free DNA sequencing was significantly higher than that of conventional microbiological tests (72.6% vs.31.4%, P < 0.001). The positive rate of conventional microbiological tests in Group I was lower than that in Group II (25.5% vs. 38.0%, P = 0.012). Combining plasma sequencing with conventional tests yielded a positive detection rate of 75.0% and 74.8% for these two groups, respectively. Using the composite reference standard, the sensitivity and specificity of plasma sequencing were 89.1% and 65.1%, respectively. The proportions of the positive impact of cell-free DNA sequencing results in the Group I were higher than in the Group II in terms of both diagnosis and treatment (diagnosis: 54.3% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.013; treatment: 45.7% vs.30.7%, P = 0.004). A total of 73 patients (21.0%) benefited from plasma sequencing through adjustment of the antibiotic regimen.

The diagnostic yield of conventional microbiological tests was low in patients with neutropenia. Combining conventional tests with plasma cell-free DNA sequencing significantly improved the detection rate for pathogens and optimized antibiotic treatment. Our findings on the clinical impact warrant confirmation through larger, multicenter, randomized controlled trials. Moreover, the cost-effectiveness of this testing strategy remains unknown and requires further exploration.