ReviewCureus2025
Non-invasive Ventilation in Adult Cancer Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes and Predictors of Failure.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute respiratory failure (ARF) is a leading cause of unexpected admissions to the ICU in adults with active solid or haematologic cancer. Early trials highlighted some benefits of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) delivered with supplemental oxygen versus conventional oxygen. Whether this is still maintained in the high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) era is doubtful. Therefore, a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided, scenario-based systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of NIV versus oxygen/HFNC and to identify predictors and outcomes of NIV failure in adult cancer patients with ARF. Searches on PubMed from inception to 31 August 2025, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library from 2010 to 31 August 2025 were completed. In this review of trials and studies, primary outcomes were NIV failure, defined as intubation during the index episode, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay, complications, and predictors of NIV failure. Two reviewers screened, extracted, and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We did not perform a formal meta-analysis, and studies were compared qualitatively. Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including four randomised trials and 22 cohorts, with a pooled sample of approximately 12,000 patients. In de novo hypoxemic respiratory failure, the largest recent trial and adjusted cohorts showed no decline in intubation or mortality rates with early NIV versus oxygen or high-flow nasal cannula. In cancer-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a form of ARF, NIV failure was common at about 60% to 80% and greatly linked to death. In the case of NIV failure, independent predictors of failure included shock, lower arterial oxygen partial pressure to inspired oxygen fraction ratio (PaO₂/FiO₂), invasive fungal infection, higher severity scores, and undetermined aetiology. However, in cases of cancer and acute respiratory failure with cardiac dysfunction, observational data suggested lower ICU mortality with early NIV. Limitations of this review include heterogeneity, residual confounding, and variable protocols. To conclude, benefits of NIV in cancer-related ARF are context dependent. There is no clear advantage of NIV over HFNC/oxygen in de novo hypoxemia. In addition, high failure risk in ARDS with NIV mandates vigilant escalation. A context-specific NIV approach rather than a blanket one is highly recommended in the HFNC era.
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.