ObjectivesWe sought to estimate the prevalence of patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) who are undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy; report their chief complaints; describe and estimate the prevalence of immune-related adverse events (IRAEs).MethodsFour abstractors reviewed the medical records of patients with cancer treated with ICB who presented to an ED in Paris, France between January 2012 and June 2017. Chief complaints, underlying malignancy and ICB characteristics, and the final diagnoses according to the emergency physician were recorded. Abstractors noted if an emergency physician identified that a patient was receiving an ICB and if the emergency physician considered the possibility of an IRAE. The gold standard as to whether an IRAE was the cause was the patients’ referring oncologist’s opinion that the ED symptoms were attributed to ICB and IRAE according to post-ED medical records. Descriptive statistics were reported.ResultsAmong the 409 patients treated with ICB at our institution, 139 presented to the ED. Chief complaints were fatigue (25.2%), fever (23%), vomiting (13.7%), diarrhoea (13.7%), dyspnoea (12.2%), abdominal pain (11.5%), confusion (8.6%) and headache (7.9%). Symptoms were due to IRAEs in 20 (14.4%) cases. The most frequent IRAEs were colitis (40%), endocrine toxicity (30%), hepatitis (25%) and pulmonary toxicity (5%). Patients with IRAEs compared with those without them more frequently had melanoma; had received more distinct courses of ICB treatment, an increased number of ICB medications and ICB cycles; and had a shorter time course since the last infusion of ICB. Emergency physicians considered the possibility of an IRAE in 24 (17.3%) of cases and diagnosed IRAE in 10 (50%) of those with later confirmed IRAE. IRAE was more likely to be missed when the referring oncologist was not contacted or when the patient had respiratory symptoms, fatigue or fever.ConclusionsICB exposes patients to potentially severe IRAEs. Emergency physicians must identify patients treated with ICB and consider their toxicity when patients present to the ED with symptoms compatible with IRAEs.

Background: Ultrasound (US) has been a regular practice in emergency departments for several decades. Thus,

No abstract

Background and importance Delayed admission to the ICU is reported to be associated with worse outcomes in cancer patients. Objective The main objective of this study was to compare the 180-day survival of cancer patients whether they were directly admitted to the ICU from the emergency department (ED) or secondarily from the wards after the ED visit. Design, settings and participants This was a retrospective observational study including all adult cancer patients that visited the ED in 2018 and that were admitted to the ICU at some point within 7 days from the ED visit. Exposure Delayed ICU admission. Outcome measure and analysis Survival at day 180 was plotted using Kaplan–Meier curves, and hazard ratio (HR) from Cox proportional-hazard models was used to quantify the association between admission modality (directly from the ED or later from wards) and survival at day 180, after adjustment to baseline characteristics. Results During the study period, 4560 patients were admitted to the hospital following an ED visit, among whom 136 (3%) patients had cancer and were admitted to the ICU, either directly from the ED in 101 (74%) cases or secondarily from the wards in 35 (26%) cases. Patients admitted to the ICU from the ED had a better 180-day survival than those admitted secondarily from wards (log-rank P = 0.006). After adjustment to disease status (remission or uncontrolled malignancy), survival at day 180 was significantly improved in the case of admission to the ICU directly from the ED with an adjusted HR of 0.50 (95% confidence interval, 0.26–0.95), P = 0.03. Conclusion In ED patients with cancer, a direct admission to the ICU was associated with better 180-day survival compared with patients with a delayed ICU admission secondary from the wards. However, several confounders were not taken into account, which limits the validity of this result.