Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39982155›Full record

ArticlePediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies2025

The Phoenix Sepsis Score in Pediatric Oncology Patients With Sepsis at PICU Admission: Test of Performance in a European Multicenter Cohort, 2018-2020.

Roelie M Wösten-van Asperen, Hannah M la Roi-Teeuw, Wim J E Tissing, Iolanda Jordan, Christian Dohna-Schwake, Gabriella Bottari, John Pappachan, Roman Crazzolara, Angela Amigoni, Agnieszka Mizia-Malarz and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Roelie M Wösten-van AsperenDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hannah M la Roi-TeeuwDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht/Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wim J E TissingPrincess Máxima Centre for Pediatric Oncology, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Iolanda JordanDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care and Institut de Recerca, Hospital Sant Joan de Déu, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Christian Dohna-SchwakeDepartment of Pediatrics I, Pediatric Intensive Care, Children's Hospital Essen, Germany.
Gabriella BottariDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Children's Hospital Bambino Gesù, IRCSS, Rome, Italy.
John PappachanDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Southampton Children's Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Roman CrazzolaraDepartment of Pediatrics, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Angela AmigoniDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Department of Woman's and Child's Health, Padua University Hospital, Padua, Italy.
Agnieszka Mizia-MalarzDepartment of Oncology, Hematology and Chemotherapy, Division of Pediatrics, Medical University of Silesia, Upper Silesian Child Health Centre, Katowice, Poland.
Andrea MoscatelliDepartment of Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy.
María Sánchez-MartínDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Jef WillemsDepartment of Pediatric Intensive Care, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Luregn J SchlapbachDepartment of Intensive Care and Neonatology, and Children's Research Centre, University Children's Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
PICU Oncology Kids in Europe Research (POKER) group research consortium of European Society for Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Pediatric Sepsis Definition Task Force developed and validated a new organ dysfunction score, the Phoenix Sepsis Score (PSS), as a predictor of mortality in children with suspected or confirmed infection. The PSS showed improved performance compared with prior scores. However, the criteria were derived in a general pediatric population, in which only 10% had cancer. Given that pediatric cancer patients with sepsis have higher mortality compared with noncancer patients with sepsis, we aimed to assess the PSS in PICU patients with cancer and sepsis.

designRetrospective multicenter cohort study.

settingTwelve PICUs across Europe. PATIENTS: Each PICU identified patients 18 years young or younger, with underlying malignancy and suspected or proven sepsis, and admission between January 1, 2018, and January 1, 2020.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe PSS and three other scores, including Phoenix-8, Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) score, and pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA) score, were calculated for comparison. The primary outcome was 90-day all-cause mortality. We compared score performance using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) analyses. Among 383 patients with proven or suspected sepsis, 90-day mortality was 19.3% (74/383). We failed to identify an association between a particular score and performance for 90-day mortality. The mean (95% CI) values for the AUROC of each score was: PSS 0.66 (0.59-0.72), Phoenix-8 0.65 (0.58-0.72), PELOD-2 0.64 (0.57-0.71), and pSOFA 0.67 (0.60-0.74) and for the AUPRC of each score: PSS 0.32 (0.23-0.42), Phoenix-8 0.32 (0.23-0.42), PELOD-2 0.32 (0.22-0.43), and pSOFA 0.36 (0.26-0.46). Similar results were obtained for PICU mortality or sepsis-related PICU mortality.

conclusionsContrary to the general PICU population, our retrospective test of the PSS in a PICU oncology dataset with suspected or proved sepsis from European PICUs, 2018-2020, failed to identify improved performance in association with mortality. This unique patient population deserves development of organ dysfunction scores that reflect organ dysfunction and mortality data specifically from these patients and will require prospective validation in future studies.

Indexed as

Intensive Care Units, PediatricNeoplasmsOrgan Dysfunction ScoresSepsisAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolEuropeFemaleHospital MortalityHumansInfantMaleRetrospective StudiesROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID39982155
PMCPMC11792984

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.