Advertisement

Critical Care

, 13:122 | Cite as

Patients with cancer on the ICU: the times they are changing

  • Evert de Jonge
  • Monique M Bos
Commentary

Abstract

A recent paper by Taccone and coworkers showed that 15% of patients from 198 European intensive care units (ICUs) had a malignancy, mostly solid tumors but also hematological malignancies. Over the past years, the prognosis of cancer patients has improved significantly, even when ICU admission is necessary. Refusal of ICU admission should not be based on a diagnosis of cancer as the underlying condition. In contrast, these decisions should be based on the availability of treatment options, and on patients' own preferences.

Keywords

Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score Hematological Cancer Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

ICU

intensive care unit

SOFA

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment.

Advances in oncological and supportive care have led to improved prognoses and extension of survival time in cancer patients. Such progress, however, has involved aggressive therapy and support. Consequently, increasing numbers of patients with cancer require admission to intensive care units (ICUs).

In the last issue of Critical Care, Dr Taccone and coworkers [1] reported that patients with cancer represent a large proportion of ICU patients. In their substudy from the Sepsis Occurrence in Acutely Ill Patients (SOAP) study conducted in 198 European ICUs, 15% of patients had a malignancy, mostly solid tumors but also hematological malignancies. These findings are in accordance with results from the SAPS-3 study, performed in 2002 in an international population comprising almost 20,000 ICU patients; these results showed that 3% of these patients had metastatic cancer, 6% had non-metastatic cancer and 2% had hematological cancer [2].

The high number of cancer patients treated on ICUs is remarkable. Less than 10 years ago, in guidelines for ICU admission, a taskforce of the American College of Critical Care Medicine concluded that patients with hematological or metastasized solid malignancies were poor candidates for ICU admission [3]. These patients were considered to have a very high risk (up to 90%) of mortality. At that time, immediate treatment limitations or even refusal of ICU admission for these patients were advocated [4].

In contrast with the very poor prognosis reported in the literature, Taccone and coauthors reported much lower hospital mortality of 58% in ICU patients with hematological cancer and 27% in patients with solid malignancies, compared with 23% in ICU patients without cancer. Others have also reported the improvement in prognosis after ICU admission for patients with hematological cancer. In hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, mortality was uniformly higher than 90% in studies before 1993, but gradually decreased to 52% in 2000 [5]. In addition to advances in stem cell transplantations, improvements in critical care may have contributed to this improvement in prognosis for these patients. Clearly, patients should no longer be refused admission to ICUs only because they have hematological cancer. A relapsed/refractory state of leukemia and a poor Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score were found to be the independent risk factors associated with mortality in patients with acute leukemia [6] and should be considered when decisions regarding ICU admission are made about patients with hematological cancer. In the study by Dr Taccone and colleagues, no information was available about the state of the cancers. The relation between SOFA score and mortality was confirmed in their population.

It should be noted that patients with solid cancers form a very heterogeneous population, with many different forms of cancer, different oncological treatments and different reasons for admission to the ICU. Most ICU patients with cancer are admitted after surgery, often as primary treatment for their cancers, and the short-term prognosis of these patients is mostly good. In patients after transhiatal esophageal resection for esophageal cancer, hospital mortality may be as low as 3.5% [7]. Likewise, mortality after pancreatico-duodenectomy in patients with pancreatic cancer may be less than 5% in experienced centers [8]. The outcome after major oncological surgery may be mostly related to the surgical procedure, more than to the critical care on the ICU. Only limited data are available about patients with cancer admitted to ICUs for other reasons than post-operative care after oncological surgery. Azoulay and coauthors [9] reported 30-day mortality of 58% in patients admitted for medical reasons. In a Brazilian study involving 1,090 patients with cancer requiring ICU admission for reasons other than routine postoperative care, hospital mortality was 51% and 6-month mortality was 61%. Most of these patients had non-metastasized solid cancer, and most patients required mechanical ventilation. In patients with a prolonged ICU length of stay, mortality was independently associated with the number of failing organs, age and performance scale score [10].

Clearly, ICU treatment is not futile for all patients with cancer. Despite these recent data, rates of refusal of ICU admission in cancer patients remain high [11] and the criteria on which triage decisions are based differ between oncologists and intensivists. Decisions to withhold life-sustaining treatments are more often made for patients with cancer than patients with other terminal diseases, even when these other diseases have at least the same poor prognosis. This has been demonstrated clearly for patients dying from chronic heart failure compared to patients with metastatic cancer [12].

Over the past years the prognosis of cancer patients has improved significantly, even when ICU admission is necessary. Refusal of ICU admission should not be based on the diagnosis of cancer as the underlying condition. In contrast, these decisions should be based on the availability of treatment options, and on patients' own preferences. Unfortunately, current prognostic models for ICU patients, all based on data from the first 24 hours after ICU admission, such as APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II and SAPS (Simplified Acute Physiology Score) II, can not reliably predict whether cancer patients will survive ICU admission [4, 13]. When in doubt, it may be a very good option to start full unlimited treatment for a few days. Discontinuation of treatment should be considered if progressive organ failure is seen after 3 to 5 days [4].

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Taccone FS, Artigas AA, Sprung CL, Moreno R, Sakr Y, Vincent JL: Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients in European ICUs. Crit Care 2009, 13: R15. 10.1186/cc7713PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Metnitz PG, Moreno RP, Almeida E, Jordan B, Bauer P, Campos RA, Iapichino G, Edbrooke D, Capuzzo M, Le Gall JR, SAPS 3 investigators: SAPS 3 – from evaluation of the patient to evaluation of the intensive care unit. Part 1: Objectives, methods and cohort description. Intensive Care Med 2005, 31: 1336-1344. 10.1007/s00134-005-2762-6PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Task Force of the American College of Critical Care Medicine, Society of Critical Care Medicine: Guidelines for intensive care unit admission, discharge, and triage. Crit Care Med 1999, 27: 633-638. 10.1097/00003246-199903000-00048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Azoulay E, Bele N, Thiery G, Schlemmer B: An alternative to refusing ICU admission of cancer patients. In 25 years of progress and innovation in Intensive Care Medicine. Edited by: Kuhlen R, Moreno R, Ranieri M, Rhodes A. Berlin: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlegsgesellschaft; 2007:449-461.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Afessa B, Tefferi A, Dunn WF, Litzow MR, Peters SG: Intensive care unit support and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation III performance in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients. Crit Care Med 2003, 31: 1715-1721. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000065761.51367.2DCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park HY, Suh GY, Jeon K, Koh W-J, Chung MP, Kim H, Kwon OJ, Kim K, Jang JH, Jung CW, Kang E, Kim M-J: Outcome and prognostic factors of patients with acute leukemia admitted to the intensive care unit for septic shock. Leukemia Lymphoma 2008, 49: 1929-1934. 10.1080/10428190802353609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Sandick JW, van Lanschot JJ, ten Kate FJ, Tijssen JG, Obertop H: Indicators of prognosis after transhiatal esophageal resection without thoracotomy for cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2002, 194: 28-36. 10.1016/S1072-7515(01)01119-XCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Geen RC, Gouma DJ: Impact of hospital volume on inhospital mortality in pancreatic surgery. Surg Technol Int 2002, 10: 61-65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azoulay E, Moreau D, Alberti C, Leleu G, Adrie C, Barboteu M, Cottu P, Levy V, Le Gall JR, Schlemmer B: Predictors of short-term mortality in critically ill patients with solid malignancies. Intensive Care Med 2000, 26: 1817-1823. 10.1007/s001340051350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soares M, Salluh JI, Torres VB, Leal JV, Spector N: Short- and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients with cancer and prolonged ICU length of stay. Chest 2008, 134: 520-526. 10.1378/chest.08-0359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garrouste-Orgeas M, Montuclard L, Timsit JF, Reignier J, Desmettre T, Karoubi P, Moreau D, Montesino L, Duguet A, Boussat S, Ede C, Monseau Y, Paule T, Misset B, Carlet J, French ADMISSIONREA Study Group: Predictors of intensive care unit refusal in French intensive care units: a multiple-center study. Crit Care Med 2005, 33: 750-755. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000157752.26180.F1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanvetyanon T, Leighton JC: Life-sustaining treatments in patients who died of chronic congestive heart failure compared with metastatic cancer. Crit Care Med 2003, 31: 60-64. 10.1097/00003246-200301000-00009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    den Boer S, de Keizer NF, de Jonge E: Performance of prognostic models in critically ill cancer patients – a review. Crit Care 2005, 9: R458-463. 10.1186/cc3765PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© BioMed Central Ltd 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Intensive CareAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine and OncologyReinier de Graaf HospitalDelftthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations