ArticleBMC cancer2021
Factors associated with survival of patients with solid Cancer alive after intensive care unit discharge between 2005 and 2013.
Article in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Impact of intensive care unit admission on the resumption of treatment in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Factors associated with ICU mortality and long-term outcomes in immunocompromised patients admitted to the intensive care unit for acute respiratory failure.Annals of intensive care · 2025Article
- Understanding cancer disease status and what it means for intensivists.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025Review
- Targeted antineoplastic therapy in critically ill cancer patients: a multicenter analysis of the iCHOP registry.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- Factors associated with cancer treatment resumption after ICU stay in patients with solid tumors.Annals of intensive care · 2024Article
- Impact of intensive care unit admission on cancer patients: enhancing long-term survival through better understanding.Critical care science · 2024Article
- Prognostic factors in oncological patients with solid tumours requiring intensive care unit admission.Oncology letters · 2023Article
- Critically ill metastatic cancer patients returning home after unplanned ICU stay: an observational, multicentre retrospective study.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- A clinically applicable prediction model for the risk of in-hospital mortality in solid cancer patients admitted to intensive care units with sepsis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Etiologies and Outcome of Patients with Solid Tumors Admitted to ICU with Acute Respiratory Failure: A Secondary Analysis of the EFRAIM Study.Respiratory care · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt intensive care unit (ICU) admission, the issue about prognosis of critically ill cancer patients is of clinical interest, especially after ICU discharge. Our objective was to assess the factors associated with 3- and 6-month survival of ICU cancer survivors.
methodsBased on the French OutcomeRea™ database, we included solid cancer patients discharged alive, between December 2005 and November 2013, from the medical ICU of the university hospital in Grenoble, France. Patient characteristics and outcome at 3 and 6 months following ICU discharge were extracted from available database.
resultsOf the 361 cancer patients with unscheduled admissions, 253 (70%) were discharged alive from ICU. The main primary cancer sites were digestive (31%) and thoracic (26%). The 3- and 6-month mortality rates were 33 and 41%, respectively. Factors independently associated with 6-month mortality included ECOG performance status (ECOG-PS) of 3-4 (OR,3.74; 95%CI: 1.67-8.37), metastatic disease (OR,2.56; 95%CI: 1.34-4.90), admission for cancer progression (OR,2.31; 95%CI: 1.14-4.68), SAPS II of 45 to 58 (OR,4.19; 95%CI: 1.76-9.97), and treatment limitation decision at ICU admission (OR,4.00; 95%CI: 1.64-9.77). Interestingly, previous cancer chemotherapy prior to ICU admission was independently associated with lower 3-month mortality (OR, 0.38; 95%CI: 0.19-0.75). Among patients with an ECOG-PS 0-1 at admission, 70% (n = 66) and 61% (n = 57) displayed an ECOG-PS 0-2 at 3- and 6-months, respectively. At 3 months, 74 (55%) patients received anticancer treatment, 13 (8%) were given exclusive palliative care.
conclusionsFactors associated with 6-month mortality are almost the same as those known to be associated with ICU mortality. We highlight that most patients recovered an ECOG-PS of 0-2 at 3 and 6 months, in particular those with a good ECOG-PS at ICU admission and could benefit from an anticancer treatment following ICU discharge.
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.