-
Case Report04-22-2025
Evaluation of prognostic factors for mortality in cancer patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit: systematic review protocol
- María Fernanda García-Aguilera
, - Nayely García-Méndez ,
- Glenn Hernández ,
- Borja M. Fernández-Félix ,
- Harold Alexander-León , [ ... ],
- Carlos Manterola
Abstract
Case ReportEvaluation of prognostic factors for mortality in cancer patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit: systematic review protocol
Critical Care Science. 2025;37:e20250283
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20250283
- María Fernanda García-Aguilera ,
- Nayely García-Méndez ,
- Glenn Hernández ,
- Borja M. Fernández-Félix ,
- Harold Alexander-León ,
- Yunqi Yu-Liu ,
- Josue Rivadeneira ,
- Luis Fuenmayor-González ,
- Cristopher Isaac Peña Robayo ,
- Fernanda Villalba ,
- Eduardo Andrés Aragundi Palacios ,
- Emérita Eugenia Basantes Borja ,
- Henry Caballero Narvaez ,
- Isabel Morales Alcocer ,
- Eduardo Velazco ,
- Georgina Muñoz ,
- Juan Pablo Holguín-Carvajal ,
- Tamara Otzen Hernández ,
- Carlos Manterola
Views158See moreABSTRACT
Introduction:
This systematic review outlines a comprehensive approach to identify and analyze prognostic factors associated with mortality in adult cancer patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit. The review will focus on all-cause 28-day mortality, and where not available, we will use 30-day, intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality.
Methods and analysis:
We present a protocol for the systematic review of prognostic factors for mortality in adult cancer patients with sepsis managed in the intensive care unit. Our primary outcome is 28-day mortality, and where not available, we will use 30-day, intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome is the global mortality incidence. Studies on the basis of the population (sepsis and neoplasms), prognostic study methods and outcome of interest (mortality) will be included. We will search the following databases: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Bireme-BVS, until April 5, 2024. The risk of bias will be assessed using the QUIPS tool. A meta-analysis will be conducted where possible to generate pooled estimates for identified prognostic factors. Two authors will independently assess the risk of bias in each study using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. The GRADE approach will be employed to evaluate the overall quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This review aims to provide clinicians with valuable insights into factors influencing mortality risk in this high-risk population, ultimately informing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes.
Ethics and socialization:
The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Does not require ethical approval.
Views158
Abstract
Case ReportEvaluation of prognostic factors for mortality in cancer patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit: systematic review protocol
Critical Care Science. 2025;37:e20250283
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20250283
- María Fernanda García-Aguilera ,
- Nayely García-Méndez ,
- Glenn Hernández ,
- Borja M. Fernández-Félix ,
- Harold Alexander-León ,
- Yunqi Yu-Liu ,
- Josue Rivadeneira ,
- Luis Fuenmayor-González ,
- Cristopher Isaac Peña Robayo ,
- Fernanda Villalba ,
- Eduardo Andrés Aragundi Palacios ,
- Emérita Eugenia Basantes Borja ,
- Henry Caballero Narvaez ,
- Isabel Morales Alcocer ,
- Eduardo Velazco ,
- Georgina Muñoz ,
- Juan Pablo Holguín-Carvajal ,
- Tamara Otzen Hernández ,
- Carlos Manterola
Views158See moreABSTRACT
Introduction:
This systematic review outlines a comprehensive approach to identify and analyze prognostic factors associated with mortality in adult cancer patients with sepsis in the intensive care unit. The review will focus on all-cause 28-day mortality, and where not available, we will use 30-day, intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality.
Methods and analysis:
We present a protocol for the systematic review of prognostic factors for mortality in adult cancer patients with sepsis managed in the intensive care unit. Our primary outcome is 28-day mortality, and where not available, we will use 30-day, intensive care unit, or in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcome is the global mortality incidence. Studies on the basis of the population (sepsis and neoplasms), prognostic study methods and outcome of interest (mortality) will be included. We will search the following databases: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Bireme-BVS, until April 5, 2024. The risk of bias will be assessed using the QUIPS tool. A meta-analysis will be conducted where possible to generate pooled estimates for identified prognostic factors. Two authors will independently assess the risk of bias in each study using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool. The GRADE approach will be employed to evaluate the overall quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This review aims to provide clinicians with valuable insights into factors influencing mortality risk in this high-risk population, ultimately informing clinical decision-making and improving patient outcomes.
Ethics and socialization:
The results of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Does not require ethical approval.
- María Fernanda García-Aguilera
-
Original Article01-13-2020
Comparison of SAPS 3 performance in patients with and without solid tumor admitted to an intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2020;32(4):521-527
Abstract
Original ArticleComparison of SAPS 3 performance in patients with and without solid tumor admitted to an intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2020;32(4):521-527
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200089
Views51See moreABSTRACT
Objective:
To compare the performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) in patients with and without solid cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit of a comprehensive oncological hospital in Brazil.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of our administrative database of the first admission of adult patients to the intensive care unit from 2012 to 2016. The patients were categorized according to the presence of solid cancer. We evaluated discrimination using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration using the calibration belt approach.
Results:
We included 7,254 patients (41.5% had cancer, and 12.1% died during hospitalization). Oncological patients had higher hospital mortality than nononcological patients (14.1% versus 10.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). SAPS 3 discrimination was better for oncological patients (AUROC = 0.85) than for nononcological patients (AUROC = 0.79) (p < 0.001). After we applied the calibration belt in oncological patients, the SAPS 3 matched the average observed rates with a confidence level of 95%. In nononcological patients, the SAPS 3 overestimated mortality in those with a low-middle risk. Calibration was affected by the time period only for nononcological patients.
Conclusion:
SAPS 3 performed differently between oncological and nononcological patients in our single-center cohort, and variation over time (mainly calibration) was observed. This finding should be taken into account when evaluating severity-of-illness score performance.
Views51Abstract
Original ArticleComparison of SAPS 3 performance in patients with and without solid tumor admitted to an intensive care unit in Brazil: a retrospective cohort study
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2020;32(4):521-527
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20200089
Views51See moreABSTRACT
Objective:
To compare the performance of the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) in patients with and without solid cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit of a comprehensive oncological hospital in Brazil.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of our administrative database of the first admission of adult patients to the intensive care unit from 2012 to 2016. The patients were categorized according to the presence of solid cancer. We evaluated discrimination using the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration using the calibration belt approach.
Results:
We included 7,254 patients (41.5% had cancer, and 12.1% died during hospitalization). Oncological patients had higher hospital mortality than nononcological patients (14.1% versus 10.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). SAPS 3 discrimination was better for oncological patients (AUROC = 0.85) than for nononcological patients (AUROC = 0.79) (p < 0.001). After we applied the calibration belt in oncological patients, the SAPS 3 matched the average observed rates with a confidence level of 95%. In nononcological patients, the SAPS 3 overestimated mortality in those with a low-middle risk. Calibration was affected by the time period only for nononcological patients.
Conclusion:
SAPS 3 performed differently between oncological and nononcological patients in our single-center cohort, and variation over time (mainly calibration) was observed. This finding should be taken into account when evaluating severity-of-illness score performance.
Prognostic Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
