ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020
Long-term prognosis of septic shock in cancer patients.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- All-cause mortality in cancer patients treated for sepsis in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Advocating for the recognition of underlying immunosuppression in critical illness.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
- Survival of Patients with Solid Tumours and Sepsis Admitted to Intensive Care in a Tertiary Oncology Centre: A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of sepsis in patients with malignancy.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- The impact of renal dysfunction after critical illness on the management of cancer.Frontiers in nephrology · 2025Article
- Expression of inflammatory factors and distribution of pathogens in patients with septic shock and their correlation with prognosis: a cross-sectional study.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2025Article
- Identification of common core genes and pathways in childhood sepsis and cancer by bioinformatics analysis.Discover oncology · 2024Article
- Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Patients with cancer and sepsis trials: an unfair representation?Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Article
- Multi-Omics Endotypes in ICU Sepsis-Induced Immunosuppression.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- Impact of cancer on mortality rates in patients with sepsis: A meta-analysis and meta-regression of current studies.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Article
- Article
- Development and validation of a new risk scoring system for solid tumor patients with suspected infection.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Outcome of cancer patients considered for intensive care unit admission in two university hospitals in the Netherlands: the danger of delayed ICU admissions and off-hour triage decisions.Annals of intensive care · 2021Article
- Assessment of mortality and performance status in critically ill cancer patients: A retrospective cohort study.PloS one · 2021Article
- Understanding and Managing Sepsis in Patients With Cancer in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Impact of Early Fluid Balance on 1-Year Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Cancer: A Retrospective Study in Central Taiwan.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the last decades, the number of cancer patients admitted in intensive care units (ICUs) for septic shock has dramatically increased. However, prognosis data remain scarce.
methodsTo assess the 180-day mortality rate in cancer patients admitted to the ICU for septic shock, a 5-year prospective study was performed. All adult patients admitted for septic shock were included and categorized into the following two groups and four subgroups: cancer patients (solid tumor or hematological malignancy) and non-cancer patients (immunocompromised or not). Data were collected and compared between the groups. Upon early ICU admission, the decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy (DFLST) or not was made by consultation among hematologists, oncologists, and the patients or their relatives.
resultsDuring the study period, 496 patients were admitted for septic shock: 252 cancer patients (119 hematological malignancies and 133 solid tumors) and 244 non-cancer patients. A DFLST was made for 39% of the non-cancer patients and 52% of the cancer patients. The 180-day mortality rate among the cancer patients was 51% and 68% for those with hematological malignancies and solid cancers, respectively. The mortality rate among the non-cancer patients was 44%. In a multivariate analysis, the performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, simplified acute physiology score 2, sequential organ failure assessment score, and DFLST were independent predictors of 180-day mortality.
conclusionsDespite early admission to the ICU, the 180-day mortality rate due to septic shock was higher in cancer patients compared with non-cancer patients, due to excess mortality in the patients with solid tumors. The long-term prognosis of cancer patients with septic shock is modulated by their general state, severity of organ failure, and DFLST.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.