Characteristics and clinical subtypes of cancer patients in the intensive care unit: a retrospective observational study for two large databases.

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have reported very different mortality rates among cancer patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), implying different clinical subtypes. We aimed to reveal the clinical subtypes and demonstrate the importance of segregating the patients in clinical research, and to report the ICD-level mortality of cancer patients in the ICU.

METHODS

Two ICU databases (MIMIC-III and eICU) were utilized to identify cancer patients. Mortality based on ICD-level diagnoses were calculated, and K-means clustering was used to identify different clinical subtypes in the MIMIC database. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were compared among subtypes, and the calibration of SAPS II and APACHE IV among different subtypes was evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 6,505 (13.8%) cancer patients of the MIMIC database and 7,351 (4.9%) ones in eICU database, were enrolled in the study. Metastasis involving pleura, metastasis involving the liver, and acute myeloid leukemia were in the top 5 diagnoses with the highest mortality in both databases. Clinical subtypes identified by K-means clustering were closely associated with admission type (elective or emergency) and clinical service provider (surgical or medical). In a four-cluster pattern, nearly all patients in the first cluster were elective admissions (99.1%), whereas in the rest of the clusters, most were emergency admissions (93.7%). Most surgical patients were in the 1+2 clusters (92.0%) and most medical patients were in the 3+4 clusters (93.5%). Most characteristics and outcomes as well as the calibration of SAPS II and APACHE IV scoring systems were significantly different among clinical subtypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Different clinical subtypes can be well identified by admission type and clinical service provider among ICU patients with cancer. Caution should be exercised when considering these patients as a whole population both in clinical practice and research. Moreover, APACHE IV has better calibration than SAPS II for cancer patients at low risk of mortality in the ICU.