Eveline Markiewicz

Scoring systems in cancer patients admitted for an acute complication in a medical intensive care unit

ObjectiveTo validate and compare two severity scoring systems, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II and to determine their prognostic value for mortality during the hospital stay and after discharge in a specific group of cancer patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) for an acute medical complication. DesignProspective cohort study. SettingThe medical ICU of a European cancer hospital. SubjectsA total of 261 consecutive cancer patients admitted to ICU for an acute medical complication. MeasurementsVariables included into the APACHE II and SAPS II scores, as well as characteristics of the cancer, were collected during the first 24 hrs of the ICU stay. Hospital and in-ICU mortalities, overall survival, and survival after day 30 were measured. ResultsObserved hospital and ICU mortalities were 33% and 23%. Median survival time was 94 days and 1-yr survival rate was 23%. The mean predicted risk of death was 26.5% with APACHE II and 26.1% with SAPS II. Correlation between both systems was excellent. Calibration for mortality prediction ability of both scoring systems was similar. Discrimination between survivors and nonsurvivors was superior with SAPS II according to the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve but was better with APACHE II for survivors using thresholds minimizing the overall misclassification rates. Multivariate prognostic analysis showed that the scoring systems were the only significant factors for hospital and in-ICU mortalities, whereas characteristics related to the cancer (extent, phase) were the factors predicting survival after discharge. ConclusionThe prognosis of cancer patients admitted to ICU for a medical problem is first determined by the acute physiologic changes induced by the complication, as evaluated by the severity scores. There is no major difference between the two assessed scoring systems. They are, however, not accurate enough to be used in the routine management of these patients. After recovery from complications, characteristics related to the neoplastic disease, however, retrieve their independent influence on the further survival.

Continuous venovenous haemofiltration in cancer patients with renal failure: a single-centre experience

ObjectiveTo assess the effect of continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) in cancer patients with acute renal failure.Patients and methodsRetrospective study of all patients with acute renal failure requiring dialysis and treated with CVVHDF in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) from a cancer hospital.ResultsFrom January 1997 until December 2002, 32 cancer patients were treated with CVVHDF for acute renal failure. Their characteristics were: male/female 23/9, median age 61 years, haematological/solid tumours 16/16, and median APACHE II and IGS II scores 31/67. The number of organ failures was 1/2/3/4 in respectively 10/6/13/2 patients. Complete, partial or absence of resolution of acute renal failure was noted in 13, 8 and 11 patients. Sixteen patients (50%) died in the ICU and 15 (47%) were discharged alive from the hospital. In univariate analysis, variables statistically significantly adversely associated with hospital mortality were renal failure of renal origin, bone marrow transplant, increasing number of organ failures, reduced lymphocyte count, elevated bilirubin and lower creatinine levels, increased thromboplastin time, younger age, increased APACHE II and IGS II, ARDS and mechanical ventilation. In multivariate analysis, two models were used including either APACHE II or IGS II. The number of organ failures was found as the only significant prognostic factor in both models (p=0.01). Elevated phosphate level was a poor prognostic factor for hospital mortality (p=0.04) in the model including APACHE II.ConclusionsIn the experience of a single centre, CVVHDF is effective in the treatment of acute renal failure in cancer patients. The increasing number of organ failures was the single independent poor predictive factor for hospital mortality. Cancer characteristics and general gravity scores were not predictive factors.

Surrogate markers predicting overall survival for lung cancer: ELCWP recommendations

The present systematic review was performed under the auspices of the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) in order to determine the role of early intermediate criteria (surrogate markers), instead of survival, in determining treatment efficacy in patients with lung cancer. Initially, the level of evidence for the use of overall survival to evaluate treatment efficacy was reviewed. Nine questions were then formulated by the ELCWP. After reviewing the literature with experts on these questions, it can be concluded that overall survival is still the best criterion for predicting treatment efficacy in lung cancer. Some intermediate criteria can be early predictors, if not surrogates, for survival, despite limitations in their potential application: these include time to progression, progression-free survival, objective response, local control after radiotherapy, downstaging in locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), complete resection and pathological TNM in resected NSCLC, and a few circulating markers. Other criteria assessed in these recommendations are not currently adequate surrogates of survival in lung cancer.