Purpose Patients with hematologic malignancies are increasingly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) when life-threatening events occur. We sought to report outcomes and prognostic factors in these patients. Patients and Methods Ours was a prospective, multicenter cohort study of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and disease status were collected after 3 to 6 months. Results Of the 1,011 patients, 38.2% had newly diagnosed malignancies, 23.1% were in remission, and 24.9% had received hematopoietic stem-cell transplantations (HSCT, including 145 allogeneic). ICU admission was mostly required for acute respiratory failure (62.5%) and/or shock (42.3%). On day1, 733 patients (72.5%) received life-supporting interventions. Hospital, day-90, and 1-year survival rates were 60.7%, 52.5%, and 43.3%, respectively. By multivariate analysis, cancer remission and time to ICU admission less than 24 hours were associated with better hospital survival. Poor performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, allogeneic HSCT, organ dysfunction score, cardiac arrest, acute respiratory failure, malignant organ infiltration, and invasive aspergillosis were associated with higher hospital mortality. Mechanical ventilation (47.9% of patients), vasoactive drugs (51.2%), and dialysis (25.9%) were associated with mortality rates of 60.5%, 57.5%, and 59.2%, respectively. On day 90, 80% of survivors had no HRQOL alterations (physical and mental health similar to that of the overall cancer population). After 6 months, 80% of survivors had no change in treatment intensity compared with similar patients not admitted to the ICU, and 80% were in remission. Conclusion Critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies have good survival, disease control, and post-ICU HRQOL. Earlier ICU admission is associated with better survival.

The proto-oncogene RAS, coding for a 21 kDa protein (p21), is mutated in 20% of lung cancer. However, the literature remains controversial on its prognostic significance for survival in lung cancer. We performed a systematic review of the literature with metaanalysis to assess its possible prognostic value on survival. Published studies on lung cancer assessing prognostic value of RAS mutation or p21 overexpression on survival were identified by an electronic search. After a methodological assessment, we estimated individual hazard ratios (HR) estimating RAS protein alteration or RAS mutation effect on survival and combined them using metaanalytic methods. In total, 53 studies were found eligible, with 10 concerning the same cohorts of patients. Among the 43 remaining studies, the revelation method was immunohistochemistry (IHC) in nine and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 34. Results in terms of survival were significantly pejorative, significantly favourable, not significant and not conclusive in 9, 1, 31, 2, respectively. In total, 29 studies were evaluable for meta-analysis but we aggregated only the 28 dealing with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and not the only one dealing with small-cell-lung cancer (SCLC). The quality scores were not statistically significantly different between studies with or without significant results in terms of survival, allowing us to perform a quantitative aggregation. The combined HR was 1.35 (95% CI: 1.16 -1.56), showing a worse survival for NSCLC with KRAS2 mutations or p21 overexpression and, particularly, in adenocarcinomas (ADC) (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.26 -2.02) and in studies using PCR (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.18 -1.65) but not in studies using IHC (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.86 -1.34). RAS appears to be a pejorative prognostic factor in terms of survival in NSCLC globally, in ADC and when it is studied by PCR.

Our meta-analysis suggests that the primary tumor SUV measurement has a prognostic value in NSCLC; these results should be confirmed in a meta-analysis on individual patients' data.

The role of p53, as a prognostic factor for survival in lung cancer, is controversial and the purpose of the present systematic review of the literature is to determine this effect.Published studies were identified with the objective to aggregate the available survival results after a methodological assessment using a scale specifically designed by the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP). To be eligible, a study had to deal with p53 assessment in lung cancer (primary site) only, and to provide a survival comparison according to the p53 status.Among the 74 eligible papers, 30 identified p53 abnormalities as a univariate statistically significant poor prognostic factor and 56 provided sufficient data to allow survival results aggregation. There was no significant difference between the trials that either showed or did not show a prognostic effect of p53 according to the methodological score or to the laboratory technique used. The studies were categorized by histology, disease stage, treatment and laboratory technique. Combined hazard ratios suggested that an abnormal p53 status had an unfavourable impact on survival: in any stage nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) the mean (95% confidence interval) was 1.44 (1.20-1.72) (number of studies included in the subgroup was 11), 1.50 (1.32-1.70) in stages I-II NSCLC (n=19), 1.68 (1.23-2.29) in stages I-IIIB NSCLC (n=5), 1.68 (1.30-2.18) in stages III-IV NSCLC (n=9), 1.48 (1.29-1.70) in surgically resected NSCLC (n=20), 1.37 (1.02-1.85) in squamous cell carcinoma (n=9), 2.24 (1.70-2.95) in adenocarcinoma (n=9), 1.57 (1.28-1.91) for a positive immunohistochemistry with antibody 1801 (n=8), 1.25 (1.09-1.43) for a positive immunohistochemistry with antibody DO-7 (n=16), and 1.65 (1.35-2.00) for an abnormal molecular biology test (n=13). Data were insufficient to determine the prognostic value of p53 in small cell lung cancer.In each subgroup of nonsmall cell lung cancer, p53 abnormal status was shown to be associated with a poorer survival prognosis. Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in industrialized countries and its incidence is steadily increasing in females and in many European countries. Despite improvements in diagnosis and therapy, the overall 5-yr survival is still 15%.Some independent prognostic factors have been identified for predicting survival and helping in the management of patients with lung cancer [1]. They include: for small cell lung cancer (SCLC), extent of disease and performance status (PS) [2]; for resectable nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), PS, tumour, node, metastasis (TNM) stage, and age [3]; for advanced NSCLC, PS, TNM stage, age, sex and weight loss [4,5]. Among biological factors, white blood cell count, serum lactate dehydrogenase level, angiogenesis and factors reflecting proliferative state have been shown to significantly predict outcome [6,7].Recent progresses in molecular biology have allowed for the extension of the research on prognostic factors to the analysis of proteins and genes involved in cancer...

Among a group of European and Israeli ICU clinicians, perceptions of inappropriate care were frequently reported and were inversely associated with factors indicating good teamwork.

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01915719.

In cancer patients, 90 % of ARDS cases are infection-related, including one-third due to invasive fungal infections. Mortality has decreased over time. NIV failure is associated with increased mortality. The high mortality associated with invasive fungal infections warrants specific studies of early treatment strategies.

Among new biological markers that could become useful prognostic factors for lung carcinoma, Ki-67 is a nuclear protein involved in cell proliferation regulation. Some studies have suggested an association between Ki-67 and poor survival in lung cancer patients. In order to clarify this point, we have performed a systematic review of the literature, using the methodology already described by our Group, the European Lung Cancer Working Party. In total, 37 studies, including 3983 patients, were found to be eligible. In total, 49% of the patients were considered as having a tumour positive for the expression of Ki-67 according to the authors cutoff. In all, 29 of the studies dealt with non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC), one with small-cell carcinoma (SCLC), two with carcinoid tumours and five with any histology. In terms of survival results, Ki-67 was a bad prognosis factor for survival in 15 studies while it was not in 22. As there was no statistical difference in quality scores between the significant and nonsignificant studies evaluable for the meta-analysis, we were allowed to aggregate the survival results. The combined hazard ratio for NSCLC, calculated using a random-effects model was 1.56 (95% CI: 1.30 -1.87), showing a worse survival when Ki-67 expression is increased. In conclusion, our meta-analysis shows that the expression of Ki-67 is a factor of poor prognosis for survival in NSCLC.