Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39215292›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2024

Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review.

Joseph L Nates, Frédéric Pène, Michael Darmon, Djamel Mokart, Pedro Castro, Sascha David, Pedro Povoa, Lene Russell, Nathan D Nielsen, Gabriel-Petre Gorecki and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Prognostic Factors and Risk Stratification in Malignant Tumor Patients With Sepsis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Joseph L NatesDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Division of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Frédéric PèneMédecine Intensive et Réanimation, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Institut Cochin, INSERM U1016, CNRS UMR8104, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
Michael DarmonMédecine Intensive et Réanimation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Saint-Louis Hospital and Paris University, Paris, France.
Djamel MokartCritical Care Department, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France.
Pedro CastroMedical Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Sascha DavidInstitute of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Pedro PovoaIntensive Care Unit 4, Dept of Intensive Care, Hospital de São Francisco Xavier, ULSLO, Lisbon, Portugal.
Lene RussellDept. of Intensive Care Medicine, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Hellerup, Denmark.
Nathan D NielsenUniversity of New Mexico Hospital, Lomas Ave, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Gabriel-Petre GoreckiFaculty of Medicine, Titu Maiorescu University, Bucharest, Romania.
Kim O GradelCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Research Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Elie AzoulayMédecine Intensive et Réanimation, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Saint-Louis Hospital and Paris University, Paris, France.
Philippe R BauerDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Bauer.Philippe@mayo.edu.
Nine-I Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunosuppressed patients, particularly those with cancer, represent a momentous and increasing portion of the population, especially as cancer incidence rises with population growth and aging. These patients are at a heightened risk of developing severe infections, including sepsis and septic shock, due to multiple immunologic defects such as neutropenia, lymphopenia, and T and B-cell impairment. The diverse and complex nature of these immunologic profiles, compounded by the concomitant use of immunosuppressive therapies (e.g., corticosteroids, cytotoxic drugs, and immunotherapy), superimposed by the breakage of natural protective barriers (e.g., mucosal damage, chronic indwelling catheters, and alterations of anatomical structures), increases the risk of various infections. These and other conditions that mimic sepsis pose substantial diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Factors that elevate the risk of progression to septic shock in these patients include advanced age, pre-existing comorbidities, frailty, type of cancer, the severity of immunosuppression, hypoalbuminemia, hypophosphatemia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and type and timing of responses to initial treatment. The management of vulnerable cancer patients with sepsis or septic shock varies due to biased clinical practices that may result in delayed access to intensive care and worse outcomes. While septic shock is typically associated with poor outcomes in patients with malignancies, survival has significantly improved over time. Therefore, understanding and addressing the unique needs of cancer patients through a new paradigm, which includes the integration of innovative technologies into our healthcare system (e.g., wireless technologies, medical informatics, precision medicine), targeted management strategies, and robust clinical practices, including early identification and diagnosis, coupled with prompt admission to high-level care facilities that promote a multidisciplinary approach, is crucial for improving their prognosis and overall survival rates.

Indexed as

Immunocompromised HostNeoplasmsShock, SepticHumansCritical careCritical care outcomesHematologic neoplasmsHematopoietic stem cell transplantationImmunocompromised hostNeoplasmsOrgan transplantationSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID39215292
PMCPMC11363658

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.