Observational studyClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
Is mortality truly higher for oncology patients admitted to intensive care units? A matched cohort observational study.
Observational study in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Development and validation of an explainable machine learning model for mortality prediction in ICU patients with lung cancer.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer patients often develop life-threatening events that prompt intensive care unit (ICU) admission. However, uncertainty regarding prognosis may hinder timely referral. We compared ICU survival in adults with solid tumors admitted emergently for medical or urgent surgical reasons with that of non-cancer controls.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 167 consecutive adults with solid tumors emergently admitted to a mixed ICU in a single center between 2010 and 2016, and compared them with two propensity-matched non-cancer cohorts. We made two 1:1 comparisons: (1) cancer and non-cancer patients matched for age, sex and do-not-intubate order; (2) the same cancer cohort matched additionally for admission diagnosis, maximum SOFA, SAPS II and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Primary outcome was ICU mortality; hospital mortality and 90-day survival were secondary endpoints.
resultsCancer cases represented 4.8% of all ICU admissions; 54% had metastatic disease, 41% acute respiratory failure, and 28.7% sepsis/shock. When matched only for demographic and functional factors, cancer patients had higher intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates than controls (27.5% vs 10.8%, p < 0.001, and 35.3% vs 16.2%, p < 0.001, respectively). After matching for severity and comorbidity, ICU and hospital mortality no longer differed significantly (27.5% vs 19.8%; p = 0.094, and 35.3% vs 28.7%; p = 0.4). 90-day survival was significantly lower for cancer patients (64.7% vs 80.2%, p < 0.001), but no differences were found with controls matched for severity and comorbidity (64.7% vs 71.3%, p = 0.4).
conclusionsSolid-tumor patients admitted to the ICU are generally more severely ill and thus present higher crude mortality than non-cancer patients. However, when severity and comorbidity are equivalent, outcomes are similar. Therefore, intensive care should be offered to cancer patients with reversible critical illness and acceptable baseline status, and a cancer diagnosis alone should not be considered a contraindication for ICU admission.
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.