Critically ill cancer patient's resuscitation: a Belgian/French societies' consensus conference.

Take-home message

We report the results of a consensus conference based on a systematic review of the literature and experts opinions assessing the management of cancer patients in the ICU.

Introduction

Life-support techniques considerably evolved since the middle of the twentieth century. Numerous developments have made possible to compensate various organ failure by means of invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilators, cardiac resuscitation haemodialysis and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). At the same time, the outcomes of patients suffering from a malignant oncological or haematological condition have been considerably improved [ 1 ] justifying exploration of resuscitation techniques in such patients.

The initial studies published in the years 1970–1990 showed the feasibility of intensive care in oncological patients despite an often poor outcome; however, this prognosis has changed profoundly over the past 20 years.

To respond to the legitimate questions raised by the application of invasive methods of monitoring and life-support techniques, the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) and the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique (Grrr-OH), two academic cooperative groups, set up a consensus conference in Brussels on December 5–7 2019. The methodology, based on that used by the Belgian national health insurance organization (INAMI), involved a systematic literature review, experts’ opinion and a final consensus conference about nine predefined questions. Here we report on the final text of consensus conference.

Methods

Members of the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) and the Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Réanimation Onco-Hématologique (Grrr-OH), two academic cooperative groups, acknowledged the need of a consensus conference about the critically ill cancer patient on October 2017. They used a methodology similar to the consensus conference organized by the Belgian national health insurance organization (INAMI) [ 2 ].

The organizing committee of this consensus conference consisted of five experts clinicians: Anne-Pascale Meert (intensivist, Bordet Institute, Brussels, Belgium, President), Dominique Benoit (intensivist, Ghent university, Belgium, Vice president), Elisabeth Quoix (chest physician, Strasbourg, France), Nathalie Meuleman (haematologist, Bordet Institute, Belgium), Djamel Mokart (intensivist, Marseille, France) and a methodologist Alain Vanmeerhaeghe (Charleroi, Belgium). According to the methodology applied for consensus conference, nine questions were formulated by the consensus conference organizing committee following a modified Delphi method (including 3 rounds).

Research questions: Which triage criteria, in terms of complications and considering the underlying neoplastic disease and possible therapeutic limitations, should be used to guide admission of cancer patient to intensive care units? Which ventilatory support [High Flow Oxygenation, Non-invasive Ventilation (NIV), Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV), Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO)] should be used, for which complications and in which environment? Which support should be used for extra-renal purification, in which conditions and environment? Which haemodynamic support should be used, for which complications, and in which environment? Which benefit of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cancer patients and for which complications? Which intensive monitoring in the context of oncologic treatment (surgery, anti-cancer treatment …)? What specific considerations should be taken into account in the intensive care unit? Based on which criteria, in terms of benefit and complications and taking into account the neoplastic disease, patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (or equivalent) should receive cellular elements derived from the blood (red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets)? Which training is required for critical care doctors in charge of cancer patients?

Subsequently, the organizing committee identified and invited the members of the systematic review panel, the expert panel and the jury.

The expert panel was composed of French and Belgian members of the ELCWP and Grrr-OH who are used to manage critically ill cancer patients and perform research in this field for more than 20 years.

The organizing committee proposed the jury which may reflect all the people involved in the real life in decision making process of cancer patients in the intensive care unit (ICU): general ICU specialists not experts in cancer resuscitation, emergency doctor, oncologist, hematologist, surgeon, pulmonologist, palliative care specialist, a patient representative and a nurse.

None of them declared conflicts of interests with regard to the research questions.

The committee organized the consensus conference on December 5–7 2019. The results of the systematic review were presented and discussed by experts followed by a questions/answers session with the jury (and the public).

The jury has to provide at the end of the conference a consensual text (conclusions and recommendations) with a precise answer to each of the questions based on the literature review, the presentations by the experts and the questions/ answers session. The text was written on the third day of the conference.

Systematic review

According to the methodology applied for consensus conference, nine questions were formulated by the consensus conference organizing committee following a modified Delphi method. These questions were provided to a bibliographic research group (Thierry Berghmans, Valérie Durieux, Laurence Fiévet, Christiane Jungels, Xiaoxiao Wang, Ionela Bold, Aureliano Pistone, Adriano Salaroli, Bogdan Grigoriu) which was independent of the working group (jury) and experts invited to interpret the selected literature. The aim of this work is to provide a systematic review of objective literature for each question. No interpretation of the data collected will be provided.

The literature search was carried out from January 2018 until January 2019 using the Ovid Medline database. The formulation of the research equations was carried out jointly by a doctor specialized in oncology, and trained in resuscitation and management of oncological emergencies, and by a librarian expert in the conduct and realization of systematic reviews. The PICO (Population/Intervention/Control/Outcome) model was used to identify the concepts included in each question. The corresponding search criteria were translated into MeSH descriptors and into keywords (free language), and were searched in the titles, summaries and names of the substance. These equations were then independently reviewed by a second doctor with the same training in oncology and resuscitation. The selection of eligible articles was carried out according to the methodology described below, in pairs so that the selection of articles and the extraction of data were validated consensually by two doctors.

Selection of articles: First step : A first selection of articles was done on the basis of the title and content of the summaries. Any article potentially eligible for the specific question was retained for the next step, blinded to the language used in the publication. The choice of abstracts was made blind in each reading group. Any reference selected by at least one of the two readers was considered for the next step. To obtain the most exhaustive review possible, “noise” (articles not eligible for systematic review) was considered acceptable. Second step : For all the articles selected during the 1st stage, full-length publications were available to the readers in a specific Dropbox. These articles were analysed on the basis of the full publication to determine their eligibility for systematic review. Third step : the eligible articles were subsequently analysed to extract the required data on the basis of an Excel file adapted to each question (data common to all the questions plus specific data). The content of the file was designed by the two expert doctors and validated/completed by the other physicians before and during the analysis of the articles.

Prospective studies, retrospective studies (including a minimum of 14 patients; choice of this threshold based on the design proposed by Simon), systematic qualitative review and systematic quantitative review with data aggregation (meta-analysis) were considered for the systematic review. Only studies whose publication was available in one of the languages accessible to the readers were selected: French, English, Dutch, German, Spanish or Italian. To be eligible, the study had to focus only on patients with cancer pathology; in the case of studies involving other types of patients, the results for the cancer patient subgroup had to be available.

The initial list of articles obtained by the search equations was provided to readers without mention of the language of publication. To assess the potential bias linked to the selection on the basis of languages accessible to readers, the librarian then distributed the references selected in the 1st step according to the language of publication.

This systematic review is available as online appendix.

Experts opinion

In a second step, recognized experts (Emmanuel Canet, Alexandre Demoule, Michael Darmon, Jean-Paul Sculier, Louis Voigt, Virginie Lemiale, Frédéric Pène, David Schnell, Etienne Lengline) in the relevant field (reflecting the range and diversity of known opinions on the subject) received the systematic review text.

Their roles were to comment on the results of research in the literature, to give their interpretation of the literature, justifying their statements by referencing them and to write a text sent to the members of the jury and to provide a precise answer to the questions of the jury during the conference consensus.

The experts’ opinion is available as online appendix.

Consensus conference

The third step consisted in the consensus conference that was held on December 5–7 2019.

The jury was composed of general intensivists (Michael Piagnerelli, France Lemaitre), emergency doctor (Olivier Peyrony), oncologists (Stéphane Holbrechts, Anne-Claire Toffart), pulmonologist (Jean-Jacques Lafitte), haematologist (Sebastian Wittnebel), palliative care specialist (Laurent Calvel) and a thoracic surgeon (Jean Lemaitre) as well as a patients’ representative of the VAINCRE association (Dominique Peltgen) and a nurse (Nathalie Leclercq). Members of the jury cannot have financial or any other conflict of interests that could influence the process. They are not experts and must not have taken a recent well-known and committed public position on the subject dealt with the conference. The consensus conference was held in French and was open to everyone including patients. Consensus conference was open to everyone including patients.

On December 5–6 2019, the results of the systematic review were presented and discussed by experts followed by a questions/answers session with the jury (and the public). The systematic review was available to the experts before the conference.

The jury has to provide at the end of the conference a consensual text (conclusions and recommendations) with a precise answer to each of the questions on the basis of the literature research, the experts ‘presentations and the questions/answers session. The text was written the third day of the conference. Only selected citations which helped in formulating the recommendations are given in the consensus text. We refer to the systematic review (suppl 1) for a comprehensive review of the literature.

Level of proof

GRADE A. High level of evidence

It means that a conclusion is based on Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs—Randomized Clinical Studies) of excellent methodological quality and that the results are consistent for several studies.

GRADE B-Moderate level of evidence

It means that a conclusion is based on RCTs with serious methodological limitations (serious limitations) or that several studies show inconsistent results.

GRADE C. Low (or very low) level of evidence

It means that a conclusion is based on RCTs with very serious methodological limitations (very serious limitations) or that a conclusion is based on RCTs with serious methodological limitations (serious limitations) and that several studies show inconsistent results.

Recommendation levels

Strong recommendation

The advantages of a specific intervention or action clearly outweigh the disadvantages or risks.

Low recommendation

There is a balance between the advantages and the disadvantages or risks of a particular intervention or action.

The consensus conference report will be updated if new data are available.

Consensus conference report

Q1- Which triage criteria, in terms of complications and considering the underlying neoplastic disease and possible therapeutic limitations, should be used to guide admission of cancer patient to intensive care units?

The main objective of this analysis is to identify reasons for ICU admission and/or refusal in cancer patients with an acute life-threatening complication (excluding programmed surgery and preventive monitoring).

Q1.1 Indications of ICU admission

Sepsis and respiratory failure are the main reasons for ICU admission in cancer patients [ 3 ].

Several observational studies have reported that early ICU referral was associated with decreased in-hospital mortality [ 4 – 7 ]. Several scores measuring variations in key physiological and biological parameters (qSOFA, SOFA, NEWS…) may help doctors in identifying patients at risk of organ failure early in the course of their disease. However, their applicability and their ability in predicting patients’ individual prognosis are insufficient to recommend their use during triage decisions [ 8 , 9 ].

Recommendations In hospital wards, patients with cancer should be screened for acute organ dysfunction. ( Grade B, strong recommendation ) ICU admission should be discussed as soon as acute organ dysfunction occurs. ( Grade B, strong recommendation ) ICU admission for critically ill cancer patients should not be delayed. ( Grade B, strong recommendation )

Q1.2 Triage criteria for ICU admission

First of all, it is important to acknowledge, timely the patient’s wishes and goals concerning life-sustaining therapy in the ICU in case of severe deterioration. Hereby it is important to taken the general condition of the patient into account.

Second, the prognosis related to the acute complications and to the underlying cancer should be taken into account. Most cancer related-characteristics (type of cancer, histopathology, etc.) have little impact on the likelihood of survival in the ICU [ 10 – 12 ]. Conversely, baseline health status (evaluated by the performance status), the burden of chronic comorbidities, and the number and severity of organ dysfunctions at ICU admission are identified as the main predictors of ICU survival [ 3 , 13 – 16 ].

Recommendations Full code ICU management should be offered to cancer patients with good general condition with prolonged life expectancy (ECOG Performance Status 0–2), particularly with a cancer in remission or with an ongoing cancer treatment. ( Grade C, strong recommendation ) Cancer patients with a poor general condition (ECOG Performance Status 3–4) within 1 month prior to ICU admission, patients who are not or no longer eligible for cancer treatment, or patients with a very short life expectancy should probably not benefit from an ICU admission. ( Grade C, strong recommendation ) Patients with controlled cancer and a good general condition should probably be admitted to ICU. The therapeutic strategies should be determined, the intensity of care should be defined according to the reversibility of the acute complication, and the efficacy of initiated treatments should be regularly evaluated. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q1.3 Evaluation of the ICU management over time

The concept of ICU trial appeared in the early 2000s. The idea was to provide full ICU support to some patients with an uncertain prognosis, but for a limited duration. Initially it was proposed to reappraised the situation of the patient after 3–5 days of full ICU support via daily interdisciplinary meetings between intensivist and oncologist / haematologist. However, whereas according to a recent study a 2–4 days ICU trial seems sufficient to discriminate survivors from non-survivors in cancer patients with an unfavorable prognosis, an ICU trial of 10–14 days would be necessary in other situations. There is insufficient data in the literature to make a recommendation concerning the time frame [ 17 ].

Recommendations The efficacy and intensity of ICU care should be evaluated daily by both intensivists and oncologists/haematologists. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q1.4 Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and ICU support

The prognosis of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients admitted to the ICU has improved over time [ 18 , 19 ]. However, this improvement is mainly observed in patients without invasive ventilation, without acute graft-versus-host disease, and with a limited number of organ failures (≤ 2).

Recommendations ICU management should probably be offered to allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients as soon as acute organ dysfunction occurs. Patient and the evolution and the severity of organ failure should be reassessed on a regular basis. ( Grade C, strong recommendation ) Invasive mechanical ventilation should probably not be implemented or prolonged in allogeneic HSC recipients who develop uncontrolled acute graft versus host disease and multiple organ failures. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q2. Which ventilatory support [High Flow Oxygenation, Non-invasive Ventilation (NIV), Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV), Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO)] should be used, for which complications and in which environment?

Q2.1 Standard oxygen therapy

We identified four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one meta-analysis [ 20 – 24 ]. These studies did not show any benefit of standard oxygen therapy in comparison to room air to relieve dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer. However, these studies do not allow us to respond to the question concerning the benefit of standard oxygen delivery for cancer patients admitted in the ICU with acute respiratory failure.

Recommendations Standard oxygen therapy should probably not be administered in a palliative setting with the only intention to reduce dyspnea. ( Grade B, strong recommendation ) Standard oxygen therapy should be administered to cancer patients admitted in the ICU with acute respiratory failure to achieve SpO 2 > 90%. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q2.2 High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO)

Seven studies compared HFNO to standard oxygen therapy. Two of these studies were RCTs and included immunocompromised patients with a large proportion of malignancies [ 25 , 26 ]. These studies did not show any reduction in mortality or intubation rate. The results of retrospective studies are discordant. Three did not show any benefit in mortality or intubation rate [ 27 – 29 ]. One showed a decrease in 28-day mortality but in this study patients received HFNO and non-invasive ventilation (NIV) [ 30 ]. The last study showed a reduction in intubation rate, without, however, a reduction in hospital mortality [ 31 ].

Recommendations HFNO should probably not be administered systematically instead of standard oxygen therapy in cancer patients admitted in the ICU with acute respiratory failure. ( Grade A, strong recommendation ) If HFNO is used, it should be limited to patients without altered level of consciousness and without organ dysfunction other than respiratory failure. HFNO should be provided for a limited duration. Close monitoring in the ICU enables early reevaluation of its efficacy. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q2.3 Non invasive ventilation (NIV)

The data relative to the benefits of NIV are conflicting. Twenty years ago, Hilbert et al. compared NIV to standard O 2 therapy in an RCT that included 54 immunocompromised patients with fever, pulmonary infiltrates and acute respiratory failure. Patients receiving NIV had a lower intubation rate and mortality [ 32 ]. These results could not be confirmed in a more recent large RCT [ 33 ]. This may be explained by a significant improvement in supportive care of critically ill oncologic patients over the past decades with a subsequent reduction in mortality as a consequence. Nevertheless, it is important to note that NIV failure in observational studies is associated with a higher mortality than early intubation [ 34 – 37 ].

Recommendations Although there is no specific data available on cancer patients, NIV should be administered to cancer patients with cardiac pulmonary oedema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation (with respiratory acidosis). ( Grade B, strong recommendation ) NIV should probably not be initiated in cancer patients admitted in the ICU with acute respiratory failure (except exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiac pulmonary oedema). This is more specifically true in patients with severe respiratory failure (polypnea, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), severe hypoxia), septic shock, respiratory failure combined with other organ failures (altered level of consciousness, need for vasopressors, renal replacement therapy) and delayed ICU admission. ( Grade B, strong recommendation ) However, if NIV is started, patient should be admitted to the ICU to allow close monitoring and frequent reassessments of its efficacy. Intubation should not be delayed in the absence of rapid improvement. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q2.4 Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)

Given that IMV appears to be the last therapeutic option in case of severe clinical deterioration, it is difficult to assess its relevance. However, it seems that delayed intubation (after NIV of HFNO failure) is associated with worst outcome [ 35 ]. The absence of diagnosis of the acute respiratory failure is also associated with worst outcome [ 31 ]. The benefit of an earlier intubation of patients with an unknown diagnosis to perform the most complete diagnostic procedure (including easy access to computed tomography scan and bronchoalveolar lavage) remains to be determined [ 38 ].

Recommendations Because IMV is initiated in case of failure of other less invasive ventilator techniques, it is impossible to make a recommendation about IMV initiation. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation ) Intubation and IMV should not be delayed in case of absence of rapid clinical improvement with HFNO or NIV or to perform diagnostic procedures if necessary. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q2.5 Extra-Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO)

Six retrospective studies with small sample sizes assessed VV-ECMO in cancer patients [ 39 – 44 ]. These studies showed a high short-term mortality which exceeded the mortality reported in patients without cancer. Patients with haematological malignancies seemed to have worse outcomes [ 39 ].

Recommendations VV-ECMO should be considered only in cancer patients with an excellent health status (WHO performance status < 2) and a good expected long-term prognosis. Indication should be discussed on a case-by-case basis between intensivists specialized in the treatment of patients with severe ARDS and haemato-oncologists. ( Expert opinion, low recommendation )

Q3. Which support should be used for extra-renal purification, in which conditions and environment?

Thirty-six studies were eligible for the systematic review [ 45 – 80 ]. The study did not adequately assess the extra renal replacement (RRT) modalities, the timing of its initiation, and the impact of these strategies on patient outcomes.

Nevertheless, two subgroups have been identified: The subgroup of patients with multiple myeloma for which randomized studies evaluate the benefit of extra-renal treatment of light chains in myeloma cylinder nephropathies (“CAST NEPHROPATHY”). Two extra renal epuration techniques have been evaluated in low-level studies with a small sample size. These studies suggest that plasma exchange and high cutoff membranes should not be used for the sole purpose of treating cast nephropathy [ 49 , 80 – 83 ]. The subgroup of patients at high risk of tumor lysis syndrome [ 50 , 53 , 79 , 84 – 86 ]. Even if Rasburicase rapidly breaks down serum uric acid, and is effective in preventing and treating hyperuricemia and tumor lysis syndrome, these patients are at high risk of developing acute renal failure and at high risk of death once acute renal failure appears. Moreover, patients with high grade malignancies (acute myelogenous and lymphoblastic leukemia and high grade lymphoma) developing acute renal failure are at increased risk of induction failure.

Recommendations It is probably advisable to recommend a RRT strategy in cancer patients similar to the general ICU population. The type RRT modality (acute intermittent vs. continuous or early vs. late) should be tailored to the local expertise. ( Expert opinion, low recommendation ) It is probably necessary to admit patients at high risk of tumor lysis syndrome in the ICU. ( expert opinion, low recommendation ) Close collaboration between the onco-haematologist and intensivist is essential for the optimal management of tumor-lysis syndrome and the underlying malignancy. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation ) The use of an early RRT strategy is not validated in patient with tumor lysis syndrome but is supported by indirect physiopathological arguments (purification of phosphates considered as a cause in the development of the acute renal failure), by the severity and its consequences. RRT can, therefore, be proposed as a metabolic control technique in patients with tumor lysis syndrome who do not respond to optimal medical treatment. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation ) In the case of intermittent haemodialysis, a risk of rebound of tumor lysis syndrome with metabolic abnormalities has been reported in case series. In the case of intermittent haemodialysis, it is preferable to initiate repeated iterative daily intermittent haemodialysis sessions. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation ) Plasma exchange and high cutoff membranes should not be used for the sole purpose of treating cast nephropathy. ( GRADE B, strong recommendation )

Q4. Which haemodynamic support should be used, for which complications, and in which environment?

None of the studies selected by the systematic review provides useful information for establishing guidelines specific to oncological intensive care. Given the lack of specific data, it is necessary to apply the recommendations currently proposed in general intensive care in oncological care [ 87 , 88 ].

Recommendations International guidelines for management of shock in critically ill and non-immunocompromised patients admitted to the ICU should be applied to cancer patients. ( Expert advice, strong recommendation )

Q5. Which benefit of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in cancer patients and for which complications?

A meta-analysis focusing on cancer patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) showed that the prognosis of these patients was generally worse than that of the general population, and that patients with a metastatic disease had more specifically a grim prognosis [ 89 ]. However, the circumstances in which CPR is started and which contribute to mortality (intra or extra-hospital, type of shockable or non-shockable rhythm, control massage, no flow duration) as well as the resuscitation technique are rarely reported. In addition, the management after return to spontaneous rhythm (coronary angiography if necessary, therapeutic hypothermia) is rarely mentioned, whereas Winther-Jensen et al. [ 90 ] found that cancer patients received significantly less investigations and treatments compared with the general population. Nevertheless, the authors noticed an improvement in survival over time in this population. Data on physical, emotional and economic complications of CPR in cancer patients and their families are not available.

Recommendations Resuscitation decisions in cancer patients must be anticipated and clearly reported in the patient’s file grade of recommendation?. Except for patients with known therapeutic limitations, cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be performed in cancer patients. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q6. Which intensive monitoring in the context of oncologic treatment (surgery, anti-cancer treatment)?

Monitoring in the ICU may be indicated in two different contexts: post-operative monitoring after oncologic surgery and monitoring during the administration of anti-tumoral treatment with specific side-effects (anaphylaxis…).

Q6.1 Postoperative monitoring

Most studies are retrospective and monocentric with small sample sizes. Nevertheless, these studies found a low likelihood of ICU admission in patients requiring oncological surgery, probably because these patients were already monitored in other facilities.

Recommendations It is probably necessary to propose a management protocol for postoperative cancer patients. Such a protocol should take local characteristics (recovery room, post anesthesia care unit) and patients’ characteristics (comorbidities and events after surgery) into account. ( Grade C, strong recommendations )

Q6.2 Monitoring during anticancer treatment

Very little literature exists on the need to monitor patients in the ICU during the administration of anti-cancer treatment. Studies evaluating the surveillance of patients without organ failure have essentially a retrospective or case–control design, and were performed in specific conditions.

The risk of complications in cancer patients is high and can either be related to the anti-cancer treatments itself (cardiac arrhythmia, anaphylaxis) or to the underlying cancer (tumor lysis syndrome). There are no studies which assessed the benefit of ICU monitoring these subgroups before the onset of organ failure dysfunctions. For new treatments, the risk of developing organ failure is assumed from phase 1 studies. Therefore, recommendations in this experimental field could not be provided. However, the ICU is the most suitable environment to monitor patients at risk of severe complications.

Recommendations It is probably necessary to discuss (between intensivist and oncologist) ICU monitoring in the first days of the treatment of an inaugural disease in patients at high risk of immediate serious complications (tumor lysis syndrome, hyperleucocytose, anaphylaxis, arrhythmia, etc). ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q7. What specific considerations should be taken into account in the intensive care unit?

Q7.1 Barriers and protection against infection Antibiotic prophylaxis against bacterial infections Studies of antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients with solid and haematological malignancies have reported limited and inconsistent benefit on mortality. The use of antibiotic prophylaxis is associated with an increased incidence of bacterial resistance to the molecules used but also of multi-resistant bacteria. No studies have specifically evaluated antibiotic prophylaxis in ICU in cancer patients [ 91 ].

Recommendations Antibiotic prophylaxis should probably not be given to cancer patients in the ICU, outside the peri-operative setting. ( Expert opinion, low recommendation )

2) Environmental control Protective isolation has been shown to be effective in limiting infectious complications and even mortality in neutropenic patients. Protective isolation appears to be most effective in patients with deep (< 500/mm 3 ) and/or prolonged (> 7 days) neutropenia. However, there is a large variation in protective isolation modalities across studies and not all modalities reduce the risk of airborne contamination with Aspergillus spores. Protective isolation should include geographic isolation (single room), technical isolation (caregivers and visitors dressed with gloves, surgical gown, cap and mask), and surface disinfection. Air filtration (HEPA filter and laminar flow) and an airlock are recommended measures, particularly in the context of deep immunodeficiency. However, these measures must not hinder the quality of care of critically ill cancer patients and should be tailored to the architectural possibilities of the unit. It should be noted, that in absence of one element of these measures, the benefit of isolation is no longer observed. It should be noted that this recommendation is based on studies published more than 30 years ago. The reproducibility of these studies in the current practice is uncertain.

Recommendations Protective isolation should probably be required for deep (< 500/mm 3 ) and/or prolonged (> 7 days) neutropenia in critically ill cancer patients. However, the benefit of protective isolation should be outweighed against the risk of adverse events, more specifically in an emergency setting. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q7.2. Choice of vascular approach and prevention of infections Choice of vascular approach There is no literature specifically focussing on cancer patients. Therefore, the guidelines for critically ill patients should be applied [ 92 , 93 ]. However, due to a higher risk of complications (haemorrhagic and infective), a strategy favouring the primary use of a peripheral venous line should be evaluated in the critically ill cancer patients.

Recommendations The use of multi-lumen central lines is preferred in ICU. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

2) Vascular approach management Any vascular approach increases the likelihood of infection and thrombosis. Several approaches have been studied: central venous catheter (CVC) (jugular, subclavian or femoral), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) or implanted port catheter; however, no studies compared these three modalities together. Initial peripherally inserted venous line followed by a CVC had more complications compared with the first-line CVC. The average catheter life is 10 days (endpoint: infection). Implanted port catheters have the lowest infection rate, while CVCs have the highest and PICCs have intermediate risk [ 94 ]. 3) Catheter management Two methods are described: catheter dressings and the use of antiseptic sponges; their strict application is feasible and is associated with a reduction in catheter-related infections. The use of impregnated catheters is not associated with a reduction of infectious complications or mortality [ 95 ]. All data were retrieved from studies performed in the general ICU population which, however, included critically ill cancer patients. In the absence of specific date, the guidelines for critically ill patients should be applied [ 93 ].

Recommendations The general guidelines regarding central venous line placement and management are likely to be applicable in critically ill cancer patients. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q7.3. Integration of Supportive Care in ICU

Nine randomized controlled trials have shown the importance of early supportive and palliative care in the management of cancer patients [ 96 – 104 ]. They focused on the overall management of patients, outside the specific context of ICU.

The use of supportive care is often insufficient and initiated late in the cancer history [ 105 ].

Recommendations All critically ill cancer patients should receive optimal supportive care before, during and after their ICU stay, in line with their wishes in terms of care intensity, recovery capacities and quality of life in the short and intermediate term [ 106 ]. ( Grade C, strong recommendation ) Supportive care should probably be started early in cancer patients. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

The choice of an integrative, consultative or mixed model is based on local possibilities and the existence of prior multi-disciplinary follow-up (oncologist or haematologist, intensivist, palliative care specialist). Initial and continuing training programs in supportive/palliative care for intensive, oncology and haematology teams should be encouraged.

Q7.4 Which stakeholders should be involved in the management of critically ill cancer patients?

Recommendations Consideration should be given to close, multidisciplinary, advanced collaboration along the cancer history including at least the oncologist/haematologist and the intensivist, if necessary expanded to other specialties, to improve the fluidity, efficiency and quality of management of critically ill cancer patients [ 13 ]. ( Grade C, strong recommendation )

Q8. Based on which criteria, in terms of benefit and complications and taking into account the neoplastic disease, patients hospitalized in an intensive care unit (or equivalent) should receive cellular elements derived from the blood (red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets)?

Q8.1 White blood cells transfusion

The prophylactic use of granulocyte transfusion has been abandoned due to the lack of benefits and the advances in conventional therapeutics. Randomized studies and meta-analyses have evaluated the benefit of the therapeutic administration of granulocytes for uncontrolled infections and have not shown a reduction in mortality. High doses of granulocytes have been reported to generate an advantage in overall survival in one study [ 107 ] but this finding could not be confirmed in a more recent study [ 108 ], suggesting that the improvement in the quality of conventional care has swept away the advantage of this procedure. According to experts, this treatment may still be considered in very selected patients with a localized infection that is poorly under control with a standardized approach.

Recommendations Granulocyte transfusions should probably not be offered as systematic adjuvant therapy in critically ill intensive care neutropenic cancer patients with severe infection. ( Grade B, strong recommendation )

Q8.2 Platelet transfusion

There is no literature specific to intensive care patients and the majority of studies focus on haematological patients. Platelet transfusion strategies can be prophylactic or therapeutic (i.e., for proven hemorrhagic complications). Results of randomized studies and systematic reviews conclude that there is no advantage of the prophylactic approach in terms of mortality; however, prophylactic platelets transfusion decreases the incidence of severe bleeding (Grade III /IV) and increases the duration until the first bleeding. Regarding the transfusion threshold, it appears on the basis of randomized studies and systematic reviews having compared 10 × 10 9 /L to a higher threshold (20–50 10 9 /L), that the restrictive approach does not affect survival. However, a lower threshold is safe and decreases the number of platelet transfusions.

Recommendations In the absence of data specific to cancer patients in ICU, it is necessary to follow the recommendations of scientific societies. A prophylactic transfusion strategy based on a platelet transfusion threshold of 10 × 10 9 to 20 × 10 9 /L should probably be proposed to cancer patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia in the ICU. ( Grade B, C strong recommendation ) In cases of severe bleeding (WHO grades 3 and 4), platelets count should probably be maintained at a level > 50 × 10 9 /L. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q8.3 Red blood cell transfusion

The literature concerning red blood cell transfusions in the ICU is fairly robust (randomized studies, meta-analyses, recommendations) but does not specifically address the cancer population (subgroups). The main issue addressed is the haemoglobin threshold to start transfusion.

In the literature, a so-called restrictive threshold (usually 7 g/dL) is compared with a more liberal threshold (9–10 g/dL). The majority of studies do not find any deleterious effect of the “restrictive” threshold. Three studies have more specifically targeted the oncological population, but the results are discrepant.

Recommendations Because the literature did not exclusively target the cancer population admitted in the ICU, the recommendations of scientific societies concerning the general ICU population must be followed. It is probably necessary to follow a restrictive erythrocyte transfusion strategy to maintain a haemoglobin level > 7 g/dL in cancer patients with euvolemic anemia admitted in the ICU. This includes patients treated for septic shock. ( Grade B, strong recommendation ) The haemoglobin transfusion threshold can be increased between 8 and 10 g/dL in patients with underlying ischemic cardiovascular pathologies. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation )

Q9. Which training is required for critical care doctors in charge of cancer patients?

The level of knowledge of onco-haematologists and critical care physicians in their reciprocal discipline has not been addressed in the literature and is, to date, not established or uniformly supported by specific training programs.

A large Brazilian retrospective multicenter study has evaluated the effect of organizational measures in the ICU on the outcome of onco-haematologic patients. The main finding was that daily meetings between the onco-haematologists and the ICU team, and implementation of specific protocols improved the patient's chances of survival.

Training of haemato-oncologist should be focused on early detection of organ failure and timely referral of patients to the ICU. Training of critical care physicians should include diagnosis, prognostication and management of specific complications directly or indirectly related to the underlying cancer.

Recommendations Close collaboration between onco-haematologists and the intensive care team, particularly through daily meetings and the implementation of protocols is recommended. ( Grade C, strong recommendation ) It is proposed to encourage universities to organize theoretical and practical training as well as continuous formative courses to allow each of the disciplines to acquire sufficient knowledge concerning the managements of cancer patients. ( Expert opinion, strong recommendation ) The jury also suggests to setup studies that evaluate the relationship between the quality of communication between teams and outcomes.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material. Supplementary file1 (DOCX 595 KB) Supplementary file2 (DOCX 2241 KB)

The members of “on behalf of the Critically ill cancer patients consensus conference group” is present in the Acknowledgements section.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

We thank “Les Amis de l’Institut Jules Bordet” for their grant. We thank Dominique Peltgen, representative of the patients group VAINCRE and Nathalie Leclercq (Nurse representative). We thank Elisabeth Quoix, Nathalie Meuleman, Djamel Mokart (for the organization of the conference), Valérie Durieux (for the systematic review) and Alain Vanmeerhaeghe (for the methodology of the consensus).

The members for the “Critically ill cancer patients consensus conference group”: Anne-Pascale Meert, Sebastian Wittnebel, Stéphane Holbrechts, Anne-Claire Toffart, Jean-Jacques Lafitte, Michael Piagnerelli, France Lemaitre, Olivier Peyrony, Laurent Calvel, Jean Lemaitre, Emmanuel Canet, Alexandre Demoule, Michael Darmon, Jean-Paul Sculier, Louis Voigt, Virginie Lemiale, Frédéric Pène, David Schnell, Etienne Lengline, Thierry Berghmans, Laurence Fiévet, Christiane Jungels, Xiaoxiao Wang , Ionela Bold, Aureliano Pistone ,Adriano Salaroli, Bogdan Grigoriu, Dominique Benoit, Elisabeth Quoix, Nathalie Meuleman, Djamel Mokart, Valérie Durieux, Dominique Peltgen, Nathalie Leclercq, Alain Vanmeerhaeghe

Author contributions

Organizing committee: A-PM (president) and DB (vice president). Consensus conference report: SW, SH, A-CT, J-JL, MP, FL, OP, LC, and JL. Expert’s report: EC, AD, MD, J-PS, LV, VL, FP, DS, and EL, systematic review: TB, LF, CJ, XW, IB, AP, AS, and BG.

Funding

Grant received from “Les Amis de l’Institut Jules Bordet” (did not influence the report).

Declarations

Conflicts of interest

APM declares having received grant from BMS outside the submitted work. DB reports grants from Gilead, Astellas, Fisher-Paykel, Baxter, Alexion and Fresenius Kabi outside the submitted work. ACT reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from Astra Zeneca, personal fees and non-financial support from BMS, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees and non-financial support from Vifor Pharma, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. EC received fees from Gilead and Sanofi Aventis for lectures and transport accommodation. AD reports personal fees from Medtronic, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Philips, personal fees from Baxter, personal fees from Hamilton, personal fees and non-financial support from Fisher and Paykel, grants from French Ministry of Health, personal fees from Getinge, grants and personal fees from Respinor, grants and non-financial support from Lungpacer, outside the submitted work. MD declares having recieved speaker fees from Astelas, Gilead and MSD and declare having received a research grant from MSD. VL is treasorier of research group who received fee from Pfizer, Fisher-Paykel, Gilead, Astellas, Alexion. FP received institutional grant from ALEXION PHARMA. JP Sculier none.

References

1. Sant M Minicozzi P Mounier M Anderson LA Brenner H Holleczek B Marcos-Gragera R Maynadie M Monnereau A Osca-Gelis G Visser O De Angelis R E.-W. Group Survival for haematological malignancies in Europe between 1997 and 2008 by region and age: results of EUROCARE-5, a population-based study Lancet Oncol 2014 15 9 931 942 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70282-7 25030467

2. Durocher A Carpentier F Dosquet P A methodology for consensus conferences Societe Royale Belge de Gastro-enterologie, Acta Gastroenterol Belg 1998 61 4 416 421 9923092

3. Shimabukuro-Vornhagen A Boll B Kochanek M Azoulay E von Bergwelt-Baildon MS Critical care of patients with cancer CA Cancer J Clin 2016 66 6 496 517 10.3322/caac.21351 27348695

4. Azoulay E Mokart D Pene F Lambert J Kouatchet A Mayaux J Vincent F Nyunga M Bruneel F Laisne LM Rabbat A Lebert C Perez P Chaize M Renault A Meert AP Benoit D Hamidfar R Jourdain M Darmon M Schlemmer B Chevret S Lemiale V Outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: prospective multicenter data from France and Belgium—a groupe de recherche respiratoire en reanimation onco-hematologique study J Clin Oncol 2013 31 22 2810 2818 10.1200/JCO.2012.47.2365 23752112

5. Gruson D Vargas F Hilbert G Bui N Maillot T Mayet T Pillet O Chene G Gbikpi-Benissan G Predictive factors of intensive care unit admission in patients with haematological malignancies and pneumonia Intensive Care Med 2004 30 5 965 971 10.1007/s00134-004-2237-1 15052383

6. Lengline E Raffoux E Lemiale V Darmon M Canet E Boissel N Schlemmer B Dombret H Azoulay E Intensive care unit management of patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia with no organ failure Leuk Lymphoma 2012 53 7 1352 1359 10.3109/10428194.2011.649752 22233111

7. Mokart D Lambert J Schnell D Fouche L Rabbat A Kouatchet A Lemiale V Vincent F Lengline E Bruneel F Pene F Chevret S Azoulay E Delayed intensive care unit admission is associated with increased mortality in patients with cancer with acute respiratory failure Leuk Lymphoma 2013 54 8 1724 1729 10.3109/10428194.2012.753446 23185988

8. Azoulay E Lemiale V Mokart D Pene F Kouatchet A Perez P Vincent F Mayaux J Benoit D Bruneel F Meert AP Nyunga M Rabbat A Darmon M Acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with malignancies Intensive Care Med 2014 40 8 1106 1114 10.1007/s00134-014-3354-0 24898895

9. Zuber B Tran TC Aegerter P Grimaldi D Charpentier J Guidet B Mira JP Pene F Network CU-R Impact of case volume on survival of septic shock in patients with malignancies Crit Care Med 2012 40 1 55 62 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822d74ba 21926606

10. Massion PB Dive AM Doyen C Bulpa P Jamart J Bosly A Installe E Prognosis of hematologic malignancies does not predict intensive care unit mortality Crit Care Med 2002 30 10 2260 2270 10.1097/00003246-200210000-00014 12394954

11. Soares M Salluh JIF Torres VBL Leal JVR Spector N Short- and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients with cancer and prolonged ICU length of stay Chest 2008 134 3 520 526 10.1378/chest.08-0359 18641110

12. McGrath S Chatterjee F Whiteley C Ostermann M ICU and 6-month outcome of oncology patients in the intensive care unit QJM 2010 103 6 397 403 10.1093/qjmed/hcq032 20231238

13. Soares M Bozza FA Azevedo LC Silva UV Correa TD Colombari F Torelly AP Varaschin P Viana WN Knibel MF Damasceno M Espinoza R Ferez M Silveira JG Lobo SA Moraes AP Lima RA de Carvalho AG do Brasil PE Kahn JM Angus DC Salluh JI Effects of organizational characteristics on outcomes and resource use in patients with cancer admitted to intensive care units J Clin Oncol 2016 34 27 3315 3324 10.1200/JCO.2016.66.9549 27432921

14. Darmon M Bourmaud A Georges Q Soares M Jeon K Oeyen S Rhee CK Gruber P Ostermann M Hill QA Depuydt P Ferra C Toffart AC Schellongowski P Muller A Lemiale V Mokart D Azoulay E Changes in critically ill cancer patients’ short-term outcome over the last decades: results of systematic review with meta-analysis on individual data Intensive Care Med 2019 45 7 977 987 10.1007/s00134-019-05653-7 31143998

15. Azoulay E Pene F Darmon M Lengline E Benoit D Soares M Vincent F Bruneel F Perez P Lemiale V Mokart D O.-H. Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Reanimation Managing critically ill hematology patients: time to think differently Blood Rev 2015 29 6 359 367 10.1016/j.blre.2015.04.002 25998991

16. Soares M Salluh JI Spector N Rocco JR Characteristics and outcomes of cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilatory support for > 24 hrs Crit Care Med 2005 33 3 520 526 10.1097/01.CCM.0000155783.46747.04 15753742

17. Shrime MG Ferket BS Scott DJ Lee J Barragan-Bradford D Pollard T Arabi YM Al-Dorzi HM Baron RM Hunink MG Celi LA Lai PS Time-limited trials of intensive care for critically ill patients with cancer: how long is long enough? JAMA Oncol 2016 2 1 76 83 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3336 26469222 PMC4713248

18. Lengline E Chevret S Moreau AS Pene F Blot F Bourhis JH Buzyn A Schlemmer B Socie G Azoulay E Changes in intensive care for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients Bone Marrow Transplant 2015 50 6 840 845 10.1038/bmt.2015.55 25798675

19. Lueck C Stadler M Koenecke C Hoeper MM Dammann E Schneider A Kielstein JT Ganser A Eder M Beutel G Improved short- and long-term outcome of allogeneic stem cell recipients admitted to the intensive care unit: a retrospective longitudinal analysis of 942 patients Intensive Care Med 2018 44 9 1483 1492 10.1007/s00134-018-5347-x 30141173

20. Ahmedzai SH Laude E Robertson A Troy G Vora V A double-blind, randomised, controlled Phase II trial of Heliox28 gas mixture in lung cancer patients with dyspnoea on exertion Br J Cancer 2004 90 2 366 371 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601527 14735178 PMC2409543

21. Booth S Kelly MJ Cox NP Adams L Guz A Does oxygen help dyspnea in patients with cancer? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996 153 5 1515 1518 10.1164/ajrccm.153.5.8630595 8630595

22. Bruera E Sweeney C Willey J Palmer JL Strasser F Morice RC Pisters K A randomized controlled trial of supplemental oxygen versus air in cancer patients with dyspnea Palliat Med 2003 17 8 659 663 14694916 10.1191/0269216303pm826oa

23. Philip J Gold M Milner A Di Iulio J Miller B Spruyt O A randomized, double-blind, crossover trial of the effect of oxygen on dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer J Pain Symptom Manag 2006 32 6 541 550 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.06.009 17157756

24. Uronis HE Currow DC McCrory DC Samsa GP Abernethy AP Oxygen for relief of dyspnoea in mildly- or non-hypoxaemic patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Br J Cancer 2008 98 2 294 299 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604161 18182991 PMC2361446

25. Azoulay E Lemiale V Mokart D Nseir S Argaud L Pene F Kontar L Bruneel F Klouche K Barbier F Reignier J Berrahil-Meksen L Louis G Constantin JM Mayaux J Wallet F Kouatchet A Peigne V Theodose I Perez P Girault C Jaber S Oziel J Nyunga M Terzi N Bouadma L Lebert C Lautrette A Bige N Raphalen JH Papazian L Darmon M Chevret S Demoule A Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen vs standard oxygen on 28-day mortality in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: the HIGH randomized clinical trial JAMA 2018 320 20 2099 2107 10.1001/jama.2018.14282 30357270 PMC6583581

26. Lemiale V Mokart D Mayaux J Lambert J Rabbat A Demoule A Azoulay E The effects of a 2-h trial of high-flow oxygen by nasal cannula versus Venturi mask in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a multicenter randomized trial Crit Care 2015 19 380 10.1186/s13054-015-1097-0 26521922 PMC4629403

27. Lemiale V Resche-Rigon M Mokart D Pene F Argaud L Mayaux J Guitton C Rabbat A Girault C Kouatchet A Vincent F Bruneel F Nyunga M Seguin A Klouche K Colin G Kontar L Perez P Meert AP Benoit DD Papazian L Demoule A Chevret S Azoulay E High-flow nasal cannula oxygenation in immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a Groupe de Recherche Respiratoire en Reanimation Onco-Hematologique study Crit Care Med 2017 45 3 e274 e280 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002085 27655324

28. Frat JP Ragot S Girault C Perbet S Prat G Boulain T Demoule A Ricard JD Coudroy R Robert R Mercat A Brochard L Thille AW R. network Effect of non-invasive oxygenation strategies in immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory failure: a post-hoc analysis of a randomised trial Lancet Respir Med 2016 4 8 646 652 10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30093-5 27245914

29. Dumas G Chevret S Lemiale V Pene F Demoule A Mayaux J Kouatchet A Nyunga M Perez P Argaud L Barbier F Vincent F Bruneel F Klouche K Kontar L Moreau AS Reignier J Papazian L Cohen Y Mokart D Azoulay E Oxygenation/non-invasive ventilation strategy and risk for intubation in immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure Oncotarget 2018 9 72 33682 33693 10.18632/oncotarget.26069 30263094 PMC6154743

30. Mokart D Geay C Chow-Chine L Brun JP Faucher M Blache JL Bisbal M Sannini A High-flow oxygen therapy in cancer patients with acute respiratory failure Intensive Care Med 2015 41 11 2008 2010 10.1007/s00134-015-3994-8 26239727

31. Azoulay E Pickkers P Soares M Perner A Rello J Bauer PR van de Louw A Hemelaar P Lemiale V Taccone FS Loeches IM Meyhoff TS Salluh J Schellongowski P Rusinova K Terzi N Mehta S Antonelli M Kouatchet A Barratt-Due A Valkonen M Landburg PP Bruneel F Bukan RB Pene F Metaxa V Moreau AS Souppart V Burghi G Girault C Silva UVA Montini L Barbier F Nielsen LB Gaborit B Mokart D Chevret S Efraim I I.S.G. the Nine Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients: the Efraim multinational prospective cohort study Intensive Care Med 2017 43 12 1808 1819 10.1007/s00134-017-4947-1 28948369

32. Hilbert G Gruson D Vargas F Valentino R Gbikpi-Benissan G Dupon M Reiffers J Cardinaud JP Noninvasive ventilation in immunosuppressed patients with pulmonary infiltrates, fever, and acute respiratory failure N Engl J Med 2001 344 7 481 487 10.1056/NEJM200102153440703 11172189

33. Lemiale V Mokart D Resche-Rigon M Pene F Mayaux J Faucher E Nyunga M Girault C Perez P Guitton C Ekpe K Kouatchet A Theodose I Benoit D Canet E Barbier F Rabbat A Bruneel F Vincent F Klouche K Loay K Mariotte E Bouadma L Moreau AS Seguin A Meert AP Reignier J Papazian L Mehzari I Cohen Y Schenck M Hamidfar R Darmon M Demoule A Chevret S Azoulay E d.O.-H. Groupe de Recherche en Reanimation Respiratoire du patient Effect of noninvasive ventilation vs oxygen therapy on mortality among immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 2015 314 16 1711 1719 10.1001/jama.2015.12402 26444879

34. Meert AP Berghmans T Markiewicz E Hardy M Nayer N Paesmans M Sculier JP Invasive mechanical ventilation in cancer patients. Prior non invasive ventilation is a poor prognostic factor J BUON 2011 16 1 160 165 21674869

35. Neuschwander A Lemiale V Darmon M Pene F Kouatchet A Perez P Vincent F Mayaux J Benoit D Bruneel F Meert AP Nyunga M Rabbat A Mokart D Azoulay E A.G.d.R.e.R.R.e.O.-H. study Noninvasive ventilation during acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with cancer: trends in use and outcome J Crit Care 2017 38 295 299 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.11.042 28038339

36. Rathi NK Haque SA Nates R Kosturakis A Wang H Dong W Feng L Erfe RJ Guajardo C Withers L Finch C Price KJ Nates JL Noninvasivepositive pressure ventilation vsinvasive mechanical ventilation as first-line therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in cancer patients J Crit Care 2017 39 56 61 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.01.007 28213266

37. Turkoglu M Erdem GU Suyani E Sancar ME Yalcin MM Aygencel G Aki Z Sucak G Acute respiratory distress syndrome in patients with hematological malignancies Hematology 2013 18 3 123 130 10.1179/1607845412Y.0000000038 23321772

38. Bauer PR Chevret S Yadav H Mehta S Pickkers P Bukan RB Rello J van de Louw A Klouche K Meert AP Martin-Loeches I Marsh B Crespi LS Moreno-Gonzalez G Buchtele N Amrein K Balik M Antonelli M Nyunga M Barratt-Due A Bergmans D Spoelstra-de Man AME Kuitunen A Wallet F Seguin A Metaxa V Lemiale V Burghi G Demoule A Karvunidis T Cotoia A Klepstad P Moller AM Mokart D Azoulay E Efraim I I.s.g. the Nine Diagnosis and outcome of acute respiratory failure in immunocompromised patients after bronchoscopy Eur Respir J 2019 54 1 07 10.1183/13993003.02442-2018 31109985

39. Schmidt M Schellongowski P Patroniti N Taccone FS Reis Miranda D Reuter J Prodanovic H Pierrot M Dorget A Park S Balik M Demoule A Crippa IA Mercat A Wohlfarth P Sonneville R Combes A Six-month outcome of immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome rescued by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an international multicenter retrospective study Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2018 197 10 1297 1307 10.1164/rccm.201708-1761OC 29298095 PMC7252852

40. Gow KW Lao OB Leong T Fortenberry JD Extracorporeal life support for adults with malignancy and respiratory or cardiac failure: the Extracorporeal Life Support experience Am J Surg 2010 199 5 669 675 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.01.018 20466114

41. Wohlfarth P Ullrich R Staudinger T Bojic A Robak O Hermann A Lubsczyk B Worel N Fuhrmann V Schoder M Funovics M Rabitsch W Knoebl P Laczika K Locker GJ Sperr WR Schellongowski P N. Arbeitsgruppe fur hamato-onkologische Intensivmedizin der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Internistische und Allgemeine Intensivmedizin und Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adult patients with hematologic malignancies and severe acute respiratory failure Crit Care 2014 18 1 R20 10.1186/cc13701 24443905 PMC4055976

42. Kang HS Rhee CK Lee HY Kim YK Kwon SS Kim SC Lee JW Clinical outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with hematologic malignancies Korean J Intern Med 2015 30 4 478 488 10.3904/kjim.2015.30.4.478 26161014 PMC4497335

43. Wu MY Wu TI Tseng YH Shen WC Chang YS Huang CC Lin PJ The feasibility of venovenous extracorporeal life support to treat acute respiratory failure in adult cancer patients Medicine (Baltimore) 2015 94 21 e893 10.1097/MD.0000000000000893 26020399 PMC4616423

44. Wohlfarth P Beutel G Lebiedz P Stemmler HJ Staudinger T Schmidt M Kochanek M Liebregts T Taccone FS Azoulay E Demoule A Kluge S Svalebjorg M Lueck C Tischer J Combes A Boll B Rabitsch W Schellongowski P H. Intensive Care in, P. Oncologic, N. Caring for Critically Ill Immunocompromised Patients Multinational Characteristics and outcome of patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome Crit Care Med 2017 45 5 e500 e507 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002293 28410318

45. Baumgartner G Major A Merrin CE Hemodialysis in patients with carcinoma J Surg Oncol 1976 8 4 339 344 10.1002/jso.2930080413 948203

46. Beckley S Wajsman LZ Pontes JE Major A Murphy GP Intermittent hemodialysis therapy in the cancer patient J Surg Oncol 1982 21 4 261 263 10.1002/jso.2930210414 7144206

47. Benoit DD Hoste EA Depuydt PO Offner FC Lameire NH Vandewoude KH Dhondt AW Noens LA Decruyenaere JM Outcome in critically ill medical patients treated with renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure: comparison between patients with and those without haematological malignancies Nephrol Dial Transplant 2005 20 3 552 558 10.1093/ndt/gfh637 15671075

48. Berghmans T Meert AP Markiewicz E Sculier JP Continuous venovenous haemofiltration in cancer patients with renal failure: a single-centre experience Support Care Cancer 2004 12 5 306 311 10.1007/s00520-003-0588-8 14747938

49. Bridoux F Carron PL Pegourie B Alamartine E Augeul-Meunier K Karras A Joly B Peraldi MN Arnulf B Vigneau C Lamy T Wynckel A Kolb B Royer B Rabot N Benboubker L Combe C Jaccard A Moulin B Knebelmann B Chevret S Fermand JP M.S. Group Effect of high-cutoff hemodialysis vs conventional hemodialysis on hemodialysis independence among patients with myeloma cast nephropathy: a randomized clinical trial JAMA 2017 318 21 2099 2110 10.1001/jama.2017.17924 29209721 PMC5820717

50. Canet E Zafrani L Lambert J Thieblemont C Galicier L Schnell D Raffoux E Lengline E Chevret S Darmon M Azoulay E Acute kidney injury in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade hematological malignancies: impact on remission and survival PLoS ONE 2013 8 2 e55870 10.1371/journal.pone.0055870 23457485 PMC3573047

51. Cosio FG Pence TV Shapiro FL Kjellstrand CM Severe renal failure in multiple myeloma Clin Nephrol 1981 15 4 206 210 7237869

52. Darmon M Thiery G Ciroldi M Porcher R Schlemmer B Azoulay E Should dialysis be offered to cancer patients with acute kidney injury? Intensive Care Med 2007 33 5 765 772 10.1007/s00134-007-0579-1 17342514

53. Darmon M Vincent F Canet E Mokart D Pene F Kouatchet A Mayaux J Nyunga M Bruneel F Rabbat A Lebert C Perez P Renault A Meert AP Benoit D Hamidfar R Jourdain M Schlemmer B Chevret S Lemiale V Azoulay E Acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with haematological malignancies: results of a multicentre cohort study from the Groupe de Recherche en Reanimation Respiratoire en Onco-Hematologie Nephrol Dial Transplant 2015 30 12 2006 2013 10.1093/ndt/gfv372 26597921 PMC4832999

54. Fischler R Meert AP Sculier JP Berghmans T Continuous renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure in patients with cancer: a well-tolerated adjunct treatment Front Med (Lausanne) 2016 3 33 27536658 10.3389/fmed.2016.00033 PMC4972010

55. Flores FX Brophy PD Symons JM Fortenberry JD Chua AN Alexander SR Mahan JD Bunchman TE Blowey D Somers MJ Baum M Hackbarth R Chand D McBryde K Benfield M Goldstein SL Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) after stem cell transplantation. A report from the prospective pediatric CRRT Registry Group Pediatr Nephrol 2008 23 4 625 630 10.1007/s00467-007-0672-2 18228045

56. Garimella PS Balakrishnan P Ammakkanavar NR Patel S Patel A Konstantinidis I Annapureddy N Nadkarni GN Impact of dialysis requirement on outcomes in tumor lysis syndrome Nephrology 2017 22 1 85 88 10.1111/nep.12806 27119419

57. Gerth HU Pohlen M Gorlich D Tholking G Kropff M Berdel WE Pavenstadt H Brand M Kumpers P Impact of high-cut-off dialysis on renal recovery in dialysis-dependent multiple myeloma patients: results from a case-control study PLoS ONE 2016 11 5 e0154993 10.1371/journal.pone.0154993 27152520 PMC4859546

58. Gilbert C Vasu TS Baram M Use of mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy in critically ill hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013 19 2 321 324 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.09.010 23025989

59. Gruss E Tomas JF Bernis C Rodriguez F Traver JA Fernandez-Ranada JM Acute renal failure in the allogeneic transplantation of hemopoietic progenitors. The clinical characteristics in a series of 92 patients Med Clin (Barc) 1998 111 20 774 775 9922967

60. Heyne N Denecke B Guthoff M Oehrlein K Kanz L Haring HU Weisel KC Extracorporeal light chain elimination: high cut-off (HCO) hemodialysis parallel to chemotherapy allows for a high proportion of renal recovery in multiple myeloma patients with dialysis-dependent acute kidney injury Ann Hematol 2012 91 5 729 735 10.1007/s00277-011-1383-0 22170517

61. Hutchison CA Bradwell AR Cook M Basnayake K Basu S Harding S Hattersley J Evans ND Chappel MJ Sampson P Foggensteiner L Adu D Cockwell P Treatment of acute renal failure secondary to multiple myeloma with chemotherapy and extended high cut-off hemodialysis Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 4 4 745 754 10.2215/CJN.04590908 19339414 PMC2666427

62. Hutchison CA Cockwell P Reid S Chandler K Mead GP Harrison J Hattersley J Evans ND Chappell MJ Cook M Goehl H Storr M Bradwell AR Efficient removal of immunoglobulin free light chains by hemodialysis for multiple myeloma: in vitro and in vivo studies J Am Soc Nephrol 2007 18 3 886 895 10.1681/ASN.2006080821 17229909

63. Hutchison CA Heyne N Airia P Schindler R Zickler D Cook M Cockwell P Grima D Immunoglobulin free light chain levels and recovery from myeloma kidney on treatment with chemotherapy and high cut-off haemodialysis Nephrol Dial Transplant 2012 27 10 3823 3828 10.1093/ndt/gfr773 22273664

64. Joseph A Harel S Venot M Valade S Mariotte E Pichereau C Chermak A Zafrani L Azoulay E Canet E Renal recovery after severe acute kidney injury in critically ill myeloma patients: a retrospective study Clin Kidney J 2018 11 1 20 25 10.1093/ckj/sfx059 29423196 PMC5798019

65. Katagiri D Hagiwara S Minami E Katsuma A Masumoto S Hoshino T Inoue T Shibata M Tada M Nakamura T Shimbo T Hinoshita F Factors associated with recovery of renal function in patients with multiple myeloma who were treated with hemodialysis Nephron 2011 117 1 c28 32 20689322 10.1159/000319644

66. Khalafallah AA Loi SW Love S Mohamed M Mace R Khalil R Girgs M Raj R Mathew M Early application of high cut-off haemodialysis for de-novo myeloma nephropathy is associated with long-term dialysis-independency and renal recovery Mediterr J Hematol Infect Dis 2013 5 1 e2013007 10.4084/mjhid.2013.007 23350020 PMC3552781

67. Lane PH Mauer SM Blazar BR Ramsay NK Kashtan CE Outcome of dialysis for acute renal failure in pediatric bone marrow transplant patients Bone Marrow Transplant 1994 13 5 613 617 8054914

68. Lanore JJ Brunet F Pochard F Bellivier F Dhainaut JF Vaxelaire JF Giraud T Dreyfus F Dreyfuss D Chiche JD Hemodialysis for acute renal failure in patients with hematologic malignancies Crit Care Med 1991 19 3 346 351 10.1097/00003246-199103000-00011 1999095

69. Letourneau I Dorval M Belanger R Legare M Fortier L Leblanc M Acute renal failure in bone marrow transplant patients admitted to the intensive care unit Nephron 2002 90 4 408 412 10.1159/000054728 11961399

70. Maccariello E Valente C Nogueira L Bonomo H Jr Ismael M Machado JE Baldotto F Godinho M Rocha E Soares M Outcomes of cancer and non-cancer patients with acute kidney injury and need of renal replacement therapy admitted to general intensive care units Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011 26 2 537 543 10.1093/ndt/gfq441 20667988

71. Park MR Jeon K Song JU Lim SY Park SY Lee JE Huh W Kim K Kim WS Jung CW Suh GY Outcomes in critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies who received renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury in an intensive care unit J Crit Care 2011 26 1 107.e1 6 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.07.006 20813488

72. Rodrigues L Neves M Sa H Gomes H Pratas J Campos M Severe acute kidney injury and multiple myeloma: evaluation of kidney and patient prognostic factors Eur J Intern Med 2014 25 7 652 656 10.1016/j.ejim.2014.06.023 25034390

73. Rousseau-Gagnon M Agharazii M De Serres SA Desmeules S Effectiveness of haemodiafiltration with heat sterilized high-flux polyphenylene HF dialyzer in reducing free light chains in patients with myeloma cast nephropathy PLoS ONE 2015 10 10 e0140463 10.1371/journal.pone.0140463 26466100 PMC4605760

74. Saez MI Camarero V Rosales A Hijazi B Izquierdo MJ Labrador J Alvarez R Hermida J Mercado V Badia MD de Toro R Gonzalez B Abaigar P Acute renal failure in patients with myeloma: experience with extended high cut-off hemodialysis Nefrologia 2017 37 4 429 431 10.1016/j.nefro.2016.10.014 28750876

75. Salahudeen AK Kumar V Madan N Xiao L Lahoti A Samuels J Nates J Price K Sustained low efficiency dialysis in the continuous mode (C-SLED): dialysis efficacy, clinical outcomes, and survival predictors in critically ill cancer patients Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009 4 8 1338 1346 10.2215/CJN.02130309 19628685 PMC2723965

76. Sens F Chaintreuil D Jolivot A Guebre-Egziabher F Robinson P Karlin L Bridoux F Juillard L Effectiveness of IHD with adsorptive PMMA membrane in myeloma cast nephropathy: a cohort study Am J Nephrol 2017 46 5 355 363 10.1159/000481461 29017155

77. Smoyer WE McAdams C Kaplan BS Sherbotie JR Determinants of survival in pediatric continuous hemofiltration J Am Soc Nephrol 1995 6 5 1401 1409 10.1681/ASN.V651401 8589315

78. Soares M Lobo SM Torelly AP Mello PV Silva U Teles JM Silva E Caruso P Friedman G Souza PC Rea-Neto A Vianna AO Azevedo JR Vale E Rezegue L Godoy M Maia MO Salluh JI I. Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Terapia Outcomes of cancer patients admitted to Brazilian intensive care units with severe acute kidney injury Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2010 22 3 236 244 10.1590/S0103-507X2010000300004 25302429

79. Soares M Salluh JI Carvalho MS Darmon M Rocco JR Spector N Prognosis of critically ill patients with cancer and acute renal dysfunction J Clin Oncol 2006 24 24 4003 4010 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.7869 16921054

80. Zucchelli P Pasquali S Cagnoli L Ferrari G Controlled plasma exchange trial in acute renal failure due to multiple myeloma Kidney Int 1988 33 6 1175 1180 10.1038/ki.1988.127 3043077

81. Clark WF Stewart AK Rock GA Sternbach M Sutton DM Barrett BJ Heidenheim AP Garg AX Churchill DN G. Canadian Apheresis Plasma exchange when myeloma presents as acute renal failure: a randomized, controlled trial Ann Intern Med 2005 143 11 777 784 10.7326/0003-4819-143-11-200512060-00005 16330788

82. Hutchison CA Cockwell P Moroz V Bradwell AR Fifer L Gillmore JD Jesky MD Storr M Wessels J Winearls CG Weisel K Heyne N Cook M High cutoff versus high-flux haemodialysis for myeloma cast nephropathy in patients receiving bortezomib-based chemotherapy (EuLITE): a phase 2 randomised controlled trial Lancet Haematol 2019 6 4 e217 e228 10.1016/S2352-3026(19)30014-6 30872075

83. Johnson WJ Kyle RA Pineda AA O'Brien PC Holley KE Treatment of renal failure associated with multiple myeloma. Plasmapheresis, hemodialysis, and chemotherapy Arch Intern Med 1990 150 4 863 869 10.1001/archinte.1990.00390160111022 2183734

84. Munker R Hill U Jehn U Kolb HJ Schalhorn A Renal complications in acute leukemias Haematologica 1998 83 5 416 421 9658725

85. Darmon M Guichard I Vincent F Schlemmer B Azoulay E Prognostic significance of acute renal injury in acute tumor lysis syndrome Leuk Lymphoma 2010 51 2 221 227 10.3109/10428190903456959 20001238

86. Darmon M Vincent F Camous L Canet E Bonmati C Braun T Caillot D Cornillon J Dimicoli S Etienne A Galicier L Garnier A Girault S Hunault-Berger M Marolleau JP Moreau P Raffoux E Recher C Thiebaud A Thieblemont C Azoulay E O.-H. Groupe de Recherche en Reanimation Respiratoire et Tumour lysis syndrome and acute kidney injury in high-risk haematology patients in the rasburicase era. A prospective multicentre study from the Groupe de Recherche en Reanimation Respiratoire et Onco-Hematologique Br J Haematol 2013 162 4 489 497 10.1111/bjh.12415 23772757

87. Rhodes A Evans LE Alhazzani W Levy MM Antonelli M Ferrer R Kumar A Sevransky JE Sprung CL Nunnally ME Rochwerg B Rubenfeld GD Angus DC Annane D Beale RJ Bellinghan GJ Bernard GR Chiche JD Coopersmith C De Backer DP French CJ Fujishima S Gerlach H Hidalgo JL Hollenberg SM Jones AE Karnad DR Kleinpell RM Koh Y Lisboa TC Machado FR Marini JJ Marshall JC Mazuski JE McIntyre LA McLean AS Mehta S Moreno RP Myburgh J Navalesi P Nishida O Osborn TM Perner A Plunkett CM Ranieri M Schorr CA Seckel MA Seymour CW Shieh L Shukri KA Simpson SQ Singer M Thompson BT Townsend SR Van der Poll T Vincent JL Wiersinga WJ Zimmerman JL Dellinger RP Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016 Intensive Care Med 2017 43 3 304 377 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 28101605

88. Cecconi M De Backer D Antonelli M Beale R Bakker J Hofer C Jaeschke R Mebazaa A Pinsky MR Teboul JL Vincent JL Rhodes A Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine Intensive Care Med 2014 40 12 1795 1815 10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z 25392034 PMC4239778

89. Reisfield GM Wallace SK Munsell MF Webb FJ Alvarez ER Wilson GR Survival in cancer patients undergoing in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a meta-analysis Resuscitation 2006 71 2 152 160 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2006.02.022 16987581

90. Winther-Jensen M Kjaergaard J Hassager C Kober L Lippert F Soholm H Cancer is not associated with higher short or long-term mortality after successful resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest when adjusting for prognostic factors Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2018 9 4_suppl S184 S192 10.1177/2048872618794090 30094997

91. Martin C Auboyer C Boisson M Dupont H Gauzit R Kitzis M Leone M Lepape A Mimoz O Montravers P Pourriat JL Steering committee of the French Society of, g Intensive Care Medicine responsible for the establishment of the, antibioprophylaxis in surgery and interventional medicine (adult patients): update 2017 Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2019 38 5 549 562 10.1016/j.accpm.2019.02.017 30836191

92. Ricard JD Salomon L Boyer A Thiery G Meybeck A Roy C Pasquet B Le Miere E Dreyfuss D Central or peripheral catheters for initial venous access of ICU patients: a randomized controlled trial Crit Care Med 2013 41 9 2108 2115 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a42c5 23782969

93. O'Grady NP Alexander M Burns LA Dellinger EP Garland J Heard SO Lipsett PA Masur H Mermel LA Pearson ML Raad AG II Randolph ME Rupp SS C. Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Guidelines for the prevention of intravascular catheter-related infections Clin Infect Dis 2011 52 9 e162 e193 10.1093/cid/cir257 21460264 PMC3106269

94. Taxbro K Hammarskjold F Thelin B Lewin F Hagman H Hanberger H Berg S Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial Br J Anaesth 2019 122 6 734 741 10.1016/j.bja.2019.01.038 31005243

95. Lai NM Chaiyakunapruk N Lai NA O'Riordan E Pau WS Saint S Catheter impregnation, coating or bonding for reducing central venous catheter-related infections in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016 3 CD007878 26982376 10.1002/14651858.CD007878.pub3 PMC6517176

96. Grudzen CR Richardson LD Johnson PN Hu M Wang B Ortiz JM Kistler EA Chen A Morrison RS Emergency department-initiated palliative care in advanced cancer: a randomized clinical trial JAMA Oncol 2016 2 5 591 598 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5252 26768772 PMC9252442

97. Temel JS Greer JA Muzikansky A Gallagher ER Admane S Jackson VA Dahlin CM Blinderman CD Jacobsen J Pirl WF Billings JA Lynch TJ Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer N Engl J Med 2010 363 8 733 742 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678 20818875

98. Brumley R Enguidanos S Jamison P Seitz R Morgenstern N Saito S McIlwane J Hillary K Gonzalez J Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care J Am Geriatr Soc 2007 55 7 993 1000 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2007.01234.x 17608870

99. Gade G Venohr I Conner D McGrady K Beane J Richardson RH Williams MP Liberson M Blum M della Penna R Impact of an inpatient palliative care team: a randomized control trial J Palliat Med 2008 11 2 180 190 10.1089/jpm.2007.0055 18333732

100. Pantilat SZ O'Riordan DL Dibble SL Landefeld CS Hospital-based palliative medicine consultation: a randomized controlled trial Arch Intern Med 2010 170 22 2038 2040 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.460 21149765

101. Rabow MW Dibble SL Pantilat SZ McPhee SJ The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation Arch Intern Med 2004 164 1 83 91 10.1001/archinte.164.1.83 14718327

102. Bakitas M Lyons KD Hegel MT Balan S Brokaw FC Seville J Hull JG Li Z Tosteson TD Byock IR Ahles TA Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial JAMA 2009 302 7 741 749 10.1001/jama.2009.1198 19690306 PMC3657724

103. Bakitas MA Tosteson TD Li Z Lyons KD Hull JG Li Z Dionne-Odom JN Frost J Dragnev KH Hegel MT Azuero A Ahles TA Early versus delayed initiation of concurrent palliative oncology care: patient outcomes in the ENABLE III randomized controlled trial J Clin Oncol 2015 33 13 1438 1445 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.6362 25800768 PMC4404422

104. Chen CH Chen JS Wen FH Chang WC Chou WC Hsieh CH Hou MM Tang ST An Individualized, interactive intervention promotes terminally ill cancer patients’ prognostic awareness and reduces cardiopulmonary resuscitation received in the last month of life: secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial J Pain Symptom Manag 2019 57 4 705 714 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.01.002 30639758

105. Kaasa S Loge JH Aapro M Albreht T Anderson R Bruera E Brunelli C Caraceni A Cervantes A Currow DC Deliens L Fallon M Gomez-Batiste X Grotmol KS Hannon B Haugen DF Higginson IJ Hjermstad MJ Hui D Jordan K Kurita GP Larkin PJ Miccinesi G Nauck F Pribakovic R Rodin G Sjogren P Stone P Zimmermann C Lundeby T Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission Lancet Oncol 2018 19 11 e588 e653 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30415-7 30344075

106. Vanbutsele G Pardon K Van Belle S Surmont V De Laat M Colman R Eecloo K Cocquyt V Geboes K Deliens L Effect of early and systematic integration of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer: a randomised controlled trial Lancet Oncol 2018 19 3 394 404 10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30060-3 29402701

107. Estcourt LJ Stanworth SJ Hopewell S Doree C Trivella M Massey E Granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in people with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016 4 CD005339 27128488 10.1002/14651858.CD005339.pub2 PMC4930145

108. Price TH Boeckh M Harrison RW McCullough J Ness PM Strauss RG Nichols WG Hamza TH Cushing MM King KE Young JA Williams E McFarland J Chakrabarty JH Sloan SR Friedman D Parekh S Sachais BS Kiss JE Assmann SF Efficacy of transfusion with granulocytes from G-CSF/dexamethasone-treated donors in neutropenic patients with infection Blood 2015 126 18 2153 2161 10.1182/blood-2015-05-645986 26333778 PMC4626256