ArticleCureus2025
Evaluating Prognosis and Prognostic Factors in Critically Ill Patients With and Without Cancer: An Observational Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lactate-to-albumin ratio as an independent predictor of short- and long-term mortality in ICU patients with malignant tumors: A retrospective cohort study.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Survival in Non-Trauma Subjects Treated in the "Shock Room" in a Tertiary Medical Center.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective There is a lack of published data on the prognosis and factors predicting mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU) for cancer patients in our region. This study aims to examine the outcomes and factors affecting mortality in cancer patients admitted to the ICU in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, in comparison to non-cancer patients. Materials and methods This retrospective study analyzed data from patients admitted to a single tertiary center's critical care unit between January 2022 and October 2023. We compared cancer patients (solid and hematological malignancies) to non-cancer patients (admitted under internal medicine), excluding elective cases and those with pre-existing Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders. Results A study of 313 patients, comprising 165 (53.7%) cancer patients and 148 (47.3%) non-cancer patients, revealed the following findings: Septic shock (74.1%) and respiratory failure (55.3%) were the primary reasons for ICU admission. Among cancer patients, breast cancer (20%) was the most prevalent, followed by colorectal (15.2%) and lung cancers (7.3%). Most oncology patients (78.8%) had metastasis. Median ICU and hospital stays were four and 12 days, respectively, with no significant differences between cancer and non-cancer patients. Cancer patients had significantly higher ICU mortality (58.8% vs. 36.5%) and in-hospital mortality rates (72.7% vs. 43.9%) compared to non-cancer patients. Multivariate analysis identified cancer diagnosis and ischemic heart disease as independent predictors of mortality. Mechanical ventilation was the sole predictor of ICU mortality among cancer patients, while DNR status predicted ICU mortality among non-cancer patients. Conclusion Critically ill cancer patients admitted to the ICU face higher mortality rates compared to non-cancer patients despite similar lengths of stay. Invasive mechanical ventilation emerges as a key predictor of mortality among cancer patients. Conversely, cancer diagnosis predicts mortality across both groups. These findings underscore the importance of discussing end-of-life care goals with advanced-stage cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
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.