- Review
- Open access
- Published:
Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review
Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 285 (2024)
Abstract
Immunosuppressed patients, particularly those with cancer, represent a momentous and increasing portion of the population, especially as cancer incidence rises with population growth and aging. These patients are at a heightened risk of developing severe infections, including sepsis and septic shock, due to multiple immunologic defects such as neutropenia, lymphopenia, and T and B-cell impairment. The diverse and complex nature of these immunologic profiles, compounded by the concomitant use of immunosuppressive therapies (e.g., corticosteroids, cytotoxic drugs, and immunotherapy), superimposed by the breakage of natural protective barriers (e.g., mucosal damage, chronic indwelling catheters, and alterations of anatomical structures), increases the risk of various infections. These and other conditions that mimic sepsis pose substantial diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Factors that elevate the risk of progression to septic shock in these patients include advanced age, pre-existing comorbidities, frailty, type of cancer, the severity of immunosuppression, hypoalbuminemia, hypophosphatemia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and type and timing of responses to initial treatment. The management of vulnerable cancer patients with sepsis or septic shock varies due to biased clinical practices that may result in delayed access to intensive care and worse outcomes. While septic shock is typically associated with poor outcomes in patients with malignancies, survival has significantly improved over time. Therefore, understanding and addressing the unique needs of cancer patients through a new paradigm, which includes the integration of innovative technologies into our healthcare system (e.g., wireless technologies, medical informatics, precision medicine), targeted management strategies, and robust clinical practices, including early identification and diagnosis, coupled with prompt admission to high-level care facilities that promote a multidisciplinary approach, is crucial for improving their prognosis and overall survival rates.
Graphical abstract
![](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13054-024-05073-0/MediaObjects/13054_2024_5073_Figa_HTML.png)
Introduction
Acquired immunosuppression usually affects patients with all type of malignancies, stem cells and solid organ transplantation, those receiving immunosuppressive therapies, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and others. The 2021 annual US National Health Interview Survey showed that 6.6% of adults had an immunosuppressive condition or were taking immunosuppressive medications [1]. The approach and management of the immunocompromised cancer patient with septic shock may be different from that of the immunocompetent patient because of the underlying disease, the type and degree of immunosuppression, the stage and severity of the underlying condition, comorbidities, and therapies associated with high toxicity [2, 3].
Immunocompromised hosts, especially those with cancer, have suffered from unconscious and conscious biases, including Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission denials, delayed ICU admissions, time-limited ICU trials, and palliative ICU admissions [4]. In the late 1990s international guidelines, patients with malignancies had a lower priority for admission to the ICU [5]. The most recent guidelines for ICU admission, discharge, and triage, published in 2016 have addressed those issues, but differences persist [6]. While most of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines may apply to this population, gaps in knowledge still exist [7]. Therefore, there is a critical and unmet need for a better understanding of the unique challenges these patients offer regarding early recognition, differential diagnosis, and timely interventions. The purpose of this article is to review the current understanding, highlight the current and persistent issues, and propose a new paradigm to improve the outcomes of septic shock in cancer patients, those with solid tumors, hemato-oncologic malignancies, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The methodology for this narrative review involved a comprehensive and systematic search of the literature, guided by the expertise of an international panel of experts. The panel of experts collectively identified key topics, selected relevant studies, and synthesized findings to provide a thorough overview of current knowledge. Regular consensus consultations ensured the integration of diverse perspectives and the accuracy of the conclusions drawn.
Epidemiology
The incidence of cancer is increasing; the risk of developing sepsis is also on the rise despite a reduction in mortality. The risk of developing sepsis is ten times higher in cancer patients [8]. Given the world’s continuously growing population, currently surpassing eight billion, and the increased cancer survival rates, the number of individuals at augmented risk will rise [9,10,11,12,13,14]. In 2022, there were 19.98 million new cases and 9.74 million deaths globally, resulting in approximately 53.5 million prevalent cases over five years [15,16,17]. Since 1991, smoking reduction, better screening, and novel cancer therapies contributed to the 33% decline in cancer mortality in the USA [16].
Patients with cancers have higher morbidity than non-cancer patients, higher risk of infection, higher emergency room visits and higher rate of admission. A large epidemiological study of emergency services utilization in the USA (2006–2012) found that four million (4.2%) annual adult emergency room (ER) visits involved cancer diagnoses [18]. Sixty percent of cancer patients admitted to the hospital in the USA (2006–2012) had primarily severe infections or cardiorespiratory failure, compared to 16% of non-cancer patients. A smaller study also reported that cancer patients had a higher admission rate than non-cancer patients (47.6% vs. 13.6%) [19]. In the study by Rivera et al., the most common causes of infections were pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and septicemia [18]. In the study by Legrand et al., the four most frequent sources of infections were pneumonia (70.2%), abdomen (19.1%), skin and soft tissue infection (4.3%) and catheter-related infection (2.8%) [20]. Factors associated with higher hospitalization rates included male sex, older age, comorbidities, and lung cancer. Another study at a Comprehensive Cancer Center reported 387,306 adult cancer admissions in a 20-year period, of which 40.4% were surgical patients, 28.2% had hematologic malignancies, and 31.4% solid tumors [21]. Among these, 12.9% went to the ICU; 38.4% of those who died at discharge had infections as principal diagnosis (e.g., sepsis, pneumonia).
Although less often reported, data on cancer patients with sepsis are also available. Between 1979 and 2001, among 854 million patients hospitalized in the USA, 1.78 million patients had cancer and sepsis, equating to 1,465 sepsis cases per 100,000 cancer patients in the USA [15]. A 2011 state-wide (population 25.65 million) study of 2,713,776 hospital discharges found that 303,492 (14%) had cancer and 17,523 (5.8%) of them also had sepsis [22]. Similarly, a study of 2,901,019 patients in 409 US hospitals (2009–2014) reported a 6% sepsis occurrence and 15% overall mortality [23]. Another large study using the US National Readmission Database, encompassing over twenty-seven million hospitalizations, found that 4% of patients had sepsis, 15.1% had cancer, and 234,641 (5.7%) had both cancer and sepsis [2]. In the EPISEPSIS study of 206 French ICUs, 12.8% of severe sepsis admissions had metastatic cancer (7.5%) or hematological malignancies (5.3%) [24]. The global EPIC II study involving 13,796 ICU patients (51% infected) found that 17% had cancer (15.1% solid tumors, 2% hematological malignancies) [25]. Among these, infection rates were 74% for hematological patients, and 53.2% for those with solid tumors. The follow-up EPIC III study included 15,202 ICU patients, 16.7% of them had cancer (2.8% of those hematological) [26]. Similarly, 72.47% of the hematological patients and 49.85% of the solid tumor patients had an infection. Considering that, worldwide, not all cancers patients with sepsis are hospitalized, among those hospitalized, the review of three different studies performed at a high-volume cancer center demonstrated a 0.94% incidence of septic shock in solid and hematologic malignancies combined (1.68% including those not meeting Sepsis-3 criteria), and 1.44% in HSCT patients [27,28,29]. More recently, Liu et al. analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample Database and found that among fourteen million patients hospitalized with sepsis between 2006 and 2014, the annual incidence rate increased at a higher rate in cancer patients [30]. They reported an increase in the annual incidence of 15.8% for Gram-negative bacteria (GNB), 7.4% for Gram-positive bacteria (GPB), 16.5% for anaerobes, and 11.6% for fungi. Whether or not those data reflect a real increase in incidence or better identification remains unclear.
Pathophysiology
Although not all cancer patients are immunosuppressed, the degree of immunosuppression is a crucial risk for sepsis and poor outcomes. The pathogenesis of sepsis is complex and depends on the type of infection and the host response involving the activation of the endothelium and complement, microvascular and coagulation dysfunction, and microbiome dysbiosis among others [31,32,33,34]. In cancer patients with sepsis, mortality and other complications are higher than in the general population, because of their intrinsic vulnerabilities and risk factors (Table 1). The affected pathways will influence development, progression and potentially outcome of sepsis.
The immune system includes rapid response, low-specificity innate immune system (complement system, phagocytic cells) and delayed response, high specificity adaptive immune system (B- and T-lymphocytes). Immunosuppression can come from the cancer, its therapy or both, Infection risks vary based on the immune defect type: for example, complement defects or inhibition (e.g., eculizumab, a C5 inhibitor) increase susceptibility to Neisseria and blood-borne pathogens, while defects in cell-mediated immunity increase the risk of opportunistic infections [35] (Table 2). The underlying immune status impacts the course of septic shock and the susceptibility to ICU-acquired complications [36]. The pathophysiology of cancer patients with sepsis is intertwined: both entities share common characteristics that result from a dysregulated immune system, raising the specter of their mutual impact on each other's course [37]. Few studies compare sepsis pathophysiology between immunocompromised hosts and those who are not, with various findings not always aligned with outcomes [38]. This may be because endotoxin effects are lymphocyte-independent, as shown in animal models, or because septic shock can induce acquired immunosuppression in previously non-immunosuppressed patients [34, 39]. Comorbidities such as diabetes are not only a risk factor for infection and sepsis but also a risk factor of poor outcome [40]. Advanced age, malnutrition and frailty are also well-established risk factors of poor prognosis, due to a weakened immune response and diminished physiological reserve [41].
Cancer patients, especially those with hematological malignancies, exhibit immune defects such as cytopenias, T-cell and B-cell suppression, and asplenia, all increasing the risk of sepsis and septic shock [42, 43]. Neutropenia increases the risk of bacterial and fungal infections. Neutrophils may also sustain antimicrobial functional defects resulting in “functional neutropenia” despite preserved cell counts [44,45,46]. This is often due to chemotherapy or radiation-induced bone marrow failure but can also result from malignant infiltration of the bone marrow. Of note, in a recent meta-analysis on individual data by Georges et al., despite that neutropenia was associated with poor outcome, the association disappeared after granulocyte colony-stimulant factor (G-CSF) therapy [47]. The systemic immunity changes in cancer patients are characterized by the increase of immature and immunosuppressive myeloid cellular populations, lymphopenia, altered function of peripheral T cells, increased frequencies of suppressive lymphocyte populations, CD4+ regulatory T cells and regulatory B-cells, changes in neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), among many other [48]. In sepsis neutrophils may have impaired chemotaxis and phagocytosis with promotion of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) in their interaction with platelets via the Toll-like 2 (TLR2) and TLR4 receptors, expansion of T regulatory cells, decrease CD4 and CD8 cells, immune exhaustion, and T cell apoptosis [49]. The inflammatory response in sepsis is acute and severe while in cancer patients it is chronic with low-grade inflammation (e.g., NLR is acutely increased in sepsis while less pronounced and chronic in cancer).
Immunosuppression in cancer is a broad term which is complex and poorly understood. In contrast to cancer patients, we can learn from other immunosuppressed patients such as solid organ transplant (SOT) patients where sepsis is also frequent and a common cause of death [50, 51], although less often than with other immunosuppressed states. Two large retrospective analysis, one with about 30,000 ICU patients using the Sepsis-3 definition, and another with 903,816 sepsis hospitalizations (4.4% SOT), found that SOT patients presented a 14.4% lower 28-day mortality and OR 0.83 for hospital mortality (95% Confidence Interval, 0.79–0.87) compared to non-SOT septic patients, suggesting that immunosuppression alone may not always be associated with a worse outcome and other deleterious conditions may coexist [52, 53].
The use of immunosuppressive drugs (e.g., corticosteroids or Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors) is increasingly common in various diseases and in cancer patients. These drugs affect both innate and acquired immunity by diminishing phagocytosis and thereby the killing of bacterial and fungal pathogens, leading to systemic infections and significant defects in cell-mediated immunity during long-term treatment. These effects are dose-dependent and worsen with the combination of drugs [54]. Cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs affect all rapidly dividing cells, including bone marrow and gastrointestinal mucosa cells, making mucocutaneous barrier translocation a common source of bacterial infection in cancer patients. Antimetabolite agents (e.g., methotrexate, fluorouracil), often combined with corticosteroids, cause neutropenia and mucositis [55]. Alkylating agents (e.g., cyclophosphamide) cause bone marrow suppression, lower neutrophil, and lymphocyte counts, and increase the risk of infection. Anthracyclines (e.g., doxorubicin) also cause neutropenia and mucositis. Purine analogues (e.g., fludarabine) result in prolonged T-cell lymphopenia, exposing to infection from Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, GNB, Listeria, and Mycobacteria [56]. Anti-lymphocyte monoclonal antibodies (e.g., rituximab) deplete B lymphocytes, and alemtuzumab causes prolonged B- and T-cell lymphopenia, leading to a wide range of bacterial and non-bacterial infections [57]. Immune therapies (e.g., Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor) affect both innate and acquired immune responses to microbial pathogens. Mycophenolate mofetil inhibits lymphocyte clonal expansion upon antigen exposure, while calcineurin inhibitors (cyclosporine and tacrolimus) primarily affect T-cells [58]. Anthracyclines can cause cardiotoxicity and long-term corticosteroid use can cause adrenal insufficiency. Altered gut microbiota diversity secondary to prolonged antimicrobial exposure is also a risk factor for bacteremia [59, 60]. Endothelial stress secondary to cytotoxic chemotherapy could impair vasopressor response, although a study found no increased shock severity in cancer patients from chemotherapy exposure [61].
Evidence that immunosuppression affects severity of sepsis is conflicting and perspectives on the consequences of immunosuppression on the severity of sepsis may be changing. A recent multicenter retrospective study, comparing septic shock in non-cancer patients but on long-term immunosuppressive therapy to patients without immunosuppressive therapy, found no differences in ICU and 3-month mortality [62]. Another study found that in-hospital mortality was lower in patients taking immunosuppressive drugs than in patients not taking immunosuppressive drugs [63]. An experimental porcine study showed that immunosuppression from cyclosporine, methylprednisolone, and mycophenolate did not alter the hemodynamic response in septic shock. Plasma cytokines were similar, except for lower interleukin-6 and higher interleukin-10 levels in the immunosuppressed group [64].
Diagnostic challenges
The early recognition of clinical signs of sepsis is challenging in cancer patients because they may not display the same features as immunocompetent individuals. Corticosteroids can mask fever, whereas lymphoproliferative disorders and chemotherapy (e.g., cytosine arabinoside, dacarbazine, cyclophosphamide) can cause non-infectious fever. White blood cell count can either be high, e.g., after corticosteroids or granulocytic stimulants, or low, e.g., after chemotherapy. Due to a reduced inflammatory response, typical signs like redness, pain, heat, and swelling may be absent [65, 66]. A low neutrophil count in the affected tissues may minimize the signs of infection which may worsen during recovery: e.g., acute respiratory distress syndrome may develop during neutropenia recovery in hematology malignancies with pneumonia [37].
Chest radiography, often first ordered for suspected lower respiratory tract infections, lacks sensitivity and specificity, making it difficult to detect new infiltrates and differentiate infection from inflammation (e.g., drug toxicity, radiation injury). Early chest computerized tomography (CT) has proven more effective than chest radiography [67, 68]. A study found chest radiography of little value for early diagnosis of pulmonary infections on the first day of neutropenic fever, whereas low-dose CT detected pulmonary infiltrates in 80% of fungal pneumonia cases, with sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of 73%, 91%, 62%, and 94%, respectively [69]. However, international guidelines for community- and/or hospital-acquired pneumonias do not make any specific recommendation for patients with cancer [70].
Biomarkers, which present some limitations in the whole septic population, are even more difficult to interpret in cancer patients with sepsis [71]. Their levels are high in infectious and non-infectious conditions, e.g., mucositis, post-chemotherapy bone marrow depression, graft-versus-host disease, or by the tumor itself. C-reactive protein (CRP) is non-specific and may increase in extensive and metastatic cancers (renal, prostate, bladder), or after invasive procedures, radiation, or medications [72]. CRP concentrations are higher in case of neutropenia but its course over time does not depend on the presence of neutropenia [73]. CRP levels decrease in patients treated with tocilizumab, making it unreliable for detecting infections in this situation [74]. Baseline procalcitonin (PCT) levels are high in thyroid medullary carcinoma, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, varying with disease stage, and higher in hematological malignancies than in solid tumors [75]. PCT lacks discriminatory value between GPB and GNB infections and between neutropenic and non-neutropenic patients [76].
Pro-adrenomedullin performs better than PCT in hematological patients, and the combination of both biomarkers to the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) index may be helpful [77]. PCT ≥ 1.5 ng/mL was predictive of septic shock with sensitivity and specificity of 84.0 and 90.7%. A MASCC score < 21 had a 46% sensitivity and 90% specificity in predicting bacteremia, and 68% and 90% in predicting septic shock, respectively [78]. PCT, CRP, and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein did not distinguish between systemic inflammatory response and infection but helped distinguish the presence of bacteremia in neutropenic patients [79]. In a condition of high prevalence of GNB in HSCT recipients, presepsin outperformed PCT and CRP for early diagnosis of GNB bloodstream infections in HSCT [80].
Other conditions that present with fever, multiorgan failure (including shock), and increase in inflammatory biomarker levels can resemble sepsis (Fig. 1). These mimickers include neutropenic enterocolitis (typhlitis), cytokine release syndrome (CRS) after CAR-T cell therapy or bispecific antibodies therapy, tumor lysis syndrome, hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, or engraftment syndrome in HSCT, among others. Differential diagnosis of these syndromes with sepsis/septic shock can be challenging. Neutropenic enterocolitis is a dreadful condition seen after recent chemotherapy. It remains a diagnosis of exclusion that requires histological confirmation [81]. Thus, both clinical and microbiological infections are especially common during severe CRS and associated with poor outcome [82, 83]. Therefore, one should aways entertain the diagnosis of sepsis and initiate immediately empirical antibiotic administration and specific therapy until securing a proper diagnosis.
Management strategies
The management of septic shock in cancer patients should not depart from the strategy recommended for any septic shock and include four tenants: early recognition, early therapy (antibiotics, fluids, vasopressors, and source control), early ICU admission, and adjustment to the presumed cause of septic shock.
Early recognition should include a high degree of suspicion and awareness. The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend hospitals and health systems implement performance improvement programs, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients, and standard operating procedures for treatment [84]. The 2018 German guidelines for the management of sepsis in neutropenic cancer patients also encouraged screening criteria and performance improvement processes [85]. Many wearable devices such as smartwatches, fitness trackers, and medical devices patched to the body are available in the market. The combination of these devices and anomaly detection models have been used for early detection of COVID-19 infection in ambulatory settings [86]. At the same time, machine learning, artificial neural networks, decision trees, and other techniques have been used to improve early detection and management of sepsis and septic shock [87]. Although in the preliminary stages, their development is rapidly advancing and progressively integrated in our practice as part of the electronic health records clinical decision systems [88].
Early ICU admission is beneficial for septic patients with cancer [89,90,91]. Delayed ICU admission has been associated with worse outcomes [92, 93]. Criteria alone are neither necessary nor sufficient to offer or decline ICU admission and vary across institutions, culture, and countries. It may be better to assess the potential for ICU admission based on the availability of technical support and clinician expertise. What happens in countries with limited resources is not well known. There is great variability among developing countries according to their size and healthcare systems (e.g., Ecuador versus West Africa-Nigeria or East Africa-Uganda) [94,95,96], and the availability of sepsis emergency medical services for early recognition, based on clinical signs that are easy to recognize, and simple and clear goal of care [97].
Addressing the suspected or confirmed source of septic shock should account for the type and duration of immunosuppression, prophylaxis given, geographic variations and the prevalence of MDRO, which have had a marked increase worldwide [98]. Recent epidemiologic data on the prevalence of MDRO colonization and infection highlight the role of contact precautions and isolation measures in limiting the emergence of MDRO. The prospective observational CIMDREA study demonstrated that cancer patients had a lower incidence rate of ICU-acquired MDRO colonization and/or infection [99]. Early antibiotic therapy and source control (e.g., removal of infected catheter) are particularly essential among patients with cancer and/or shock. In a study by Mokart et al. in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis, a delay of one hour between the first sign of sepsis in the ICU and the initiation of antibiotics was associated with an odds ratio of death of 10 [100]. In a recent observational study of 273,255 patients with community-onset sepsis, shorter time-to-antibiotics was associated with greater absolute mortality reduction among patients with metastatic cancer [101].
Recommendations for the antimicrobial treatment of neutropenic sepsis are consistent [102,103,104,105]. According to the ecology of the hospital, previous antibiotic exposure, and colonization, antibiotic treatment is based upon intravenous anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin or piperacillin-tazobactam or carbapenem. In critically ill patients, a combination therapy associating a beta-lactam with an aminoglycoside is safe [106] and has been associated with lower mortality [20, 28]. Patients previously colonized by Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus or Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus or at elevated risk of carriage by resistant GBP should receive antibiotics that cover them. Vancomycin is the historical drug of choice for the treatment of MRSA, but linezolid, daptomycin and ceftaroline are also safe and efficient in this setting. Depending also on the clinical context, fungal and viral coverage could also be necessary [107]. Timely de-escalation with adequate antibiotics in neutropenic sepsis is safe and appropriate [108].
In the absence of specific data for cancer patients, fluid therapy and vasopressor administration should follow the recommendations for non-cancer patients [109]. A liberal red blood cell transfusion with a hemoglobin trigger of 9 g/dl was no more favorable than a restrictive strategy with a hemoglobin trigger of 7 g/dl in a population that included hematological malignancy and metastatic cancer [110]. However, a single center study in cancer patients with septic shock showed a survival trend favoring a liberal transfusion strategy when applied within the first 6 h of ICU admission [111] and a liberal transfusion strategy was associated with fewer major postoperative complications in patients having major cancer surgery compared with a restrictive strategy [112]. We need more studies to elucidate those discrepancies.
Prevention of infections is critical in high-risk oncology patients, and several organizations have developed evidence-based recommendations for antimicrobial prophylaxis that are beyond the scope of our review [113]. These range from the use of antibiotics (e.g., levofloxacin, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, and cefpodoxime) to prevent bacterial infections in patients receiving treatments that cause neutropenia for over a week to the use of antifungals (e.g., fluconazole, posaconazole, voriconazole) in patients after stem cell transplant, acute myeloid leukemia. Antivirals (e.g., valacyclovir, acyclovir, letermovir, entecavir) are also added in these immunosuppressed groups to prevent herpes simplex, varicella zoster virus, cytomegalovirus, or hepatitis B virus [114].
Outcomes
Mortality in cancer patients with septic shock remains high but has declined over time [30, 115, 116] and may vary according to centers [117, 118] and the immunodeficiency profile [119]. Three factors may be misconstrued as poor outcome: First, the use of Sepsis-3 criteria is associated with higher mortality (patients are sicker); second, there is admission selection bias (only the sicker patients or those expected to survive are admitted); third, cancer has become a chronic disease and more cancers at advanced stages are now admitted to the ICU. In 2019, Hensley et al. reported a 27.9% in-hospital mortality for septic cancer patients versus 19.5% for non-cancer septic patients [2]. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Nazer et al. found a mortality rate of 60% among septic cancer patients [120]. Kim et al. reported that among 322,526 patients hospitalized for septic shock (2009–2017), 13.6% had cancer, with 52% 30-day and 81.2% one-year mortality [121]. Two other studies using Sepsis-3 criteria found high mortality in cancer patients with septic shock [28, 29]. Hematological patients had 67.7% 28-day and 80.6% 90-day mortality, while solid tumor patients had 69.4% and 77.1%, respectively. Studies using older criteria reported lower mortality rates, whereas mortality was higher when using Sepsis-3 definitions [122] (Table 3).
In cancer patients admitted to ICU with septic shock, different predictors have been identified: First, predictors of reduced survival include mechanical ventilation, illness severity, thrombocytopenia, positive cultures, elevated bilirubin, and high lactate level [123]. Increased mortality in hematologic cancer patients was associated with respiratory failure, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on admission, and high lactate levels [28]. The degree or organ dysfunction and neutropenia were not associated with increased mortality [124, 125]. In solid tumor patients, mortality predictors included high lactate levels, metastatic stage, respiratory failure, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 3 or 4 [29]. Second, predictors of improved survival in hematological patients include higher albumin levels, the use of aminoglycoside, and G-CSF [28].
Reluctancy to ICU admission stems from the fact that the mortality in cancer patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock can be exceedingly high, raising questions about aligning ICU admission with goals of care and the decision to forgo life-sustaining therapy [28, 29, 126]. Recently, a study on the prognosis of patients with septic shock compared those with and without cancer and showed no difference, which is a similar ICU and hospital mortality [107]. A new paradigm is that ICU admission should not depend on the underlying immunosuppression and stage of cancer but on the degree of clinician expertise, technological support readily available and multi-discipline collaboration including telemedicine [127].
Besides the common determinants of death related to the underlying functional impairment and the extent of organ dysfunction, therapeutic strategies associated with improved survival include early recognition, early adequate antibiotic therapy and source control, early ICU admission. More debated issues are the inclusion of aminoglycosides, the place of liberal blood transfusion, and the addition of colony-stimulating factors [128, 129].
It is important to note that evaluating the prognosis of cancer patients may require different criteria than those for non-cancer counterparts. Emphasis on hospital discharge and quality of life may be more appropriate measures in advanced cases not responding to cancer therapies [130]. Additionally, assessing the risk of ICU readmission and further adjusting the underlying hematology-oncology management, such as reducing therapy intensity, discontinuing treatment, and emphasizing patient-centered palliative care are also important considerations [131, 132].
Gaps and future research directions
Because of their exclusion from epidemiological studies and clinical trials, the management of cancer patients follows the rules established for non-cancer patients. Efforts should be made to include more diverse populations in clinical trials to reduce the inappropriate extrapolation of potentially inapplicable results to underrepresented patient groups [133]. Poor clinical outcomes may be due to delay in therapy, inadequate therapy, or simply lack of data available regarding specific interventions in this population, rather than the shortfalls in medical care or healthcare systems.
Research priorities should include developing better diagnostic and prediction tools (e.g., use of artificial intelligence), better understanding of the pathophysiology of critical illness in cancer patients, optimizing diagnostic strategies, role of new immunotherapy agents (e.g., checkpoint inhibitors), treatment protocols (e.g., integration of machine learning models) [134, 135] and new challenges for palliative care such as dealing with novel side effect profiles and coping with greater uncertainty regarding prognosis [132]. Identifying prognostic factors in addition to patient age, cancer type, disease stage, and prior treatment responses is also crucial for guiding ICU decisions and improving patient outcomes [109].
Implications for clinical practice and recommendations
Strategies to identify these patients early and application of unbiased ICU admission criteria are crucial for improving clinical outcomes [136, 137]. Triage decisions should be based on intensive care needs rather than the malignancy or immunosuppression alone, and the management supported by a multidisciplinary team approach to provide comprehensive care. We propose a new paradigm that integrates innovative technologies and practices across the healthcare continuum of these complex patients (Fig. 2). An integrated system where risk assessment, active surveillance (e.g., wearable technologies), accurate sepsis prediction models through machine learning and artificial intelligence, precision medicine (e.g., metabolomics, proteomics), and others will complement the targeted management strategies [138].
New Paradigm. Despite a rise in prevalence and severity of septic shock in immunosuppressed patients, survival has improved over time. An advanced stage of the disease should not deter from ICU admission, nor the use of novel technologies such as wearable devices, outreach programs, artificial intelligence, and machine learning models for early detection and diagnosis. Critical care should remain in line with values and preference of the patient supported by their family
To improve outcomes for cancer patients, it is crucial to promote awareness of the detrimental effects of failing to control infections in their initial stages. Developing strategies for earlier detection and avoiding misdiagnosis with non-infectious causes is essential. Early interventions by critical care teams, such as through critical care outreach programs, early warning systems, remote tele-ICU particularly when specialized ICU beds are sparse, and earlier admission to ICU, improve outcomes. Adequate management of antimicrobials is essential. Additionally, there is a need for more research into the ambulatory antimicrobial management of these patients, as well as further investigation into the accuracy of biomarkers and phenotype profile, the combined use of aminoglycosides, e.g., Combination-Lock01 study [139], the role of hematopoietic colony stimulating factors in cases of neutropenic sepsis or septic shock and optimal blood transfusion strategy.
Conclusion
Cancer incidence rates are rising, and so are the rates of septic shock among these patient populations. Malignancies are risk factors for sepsis and septic shock due to their impact on both innate and acquired immunity. Infection symptoms in cancer patients may be lacking, necessitating a high index of suspicion and early detection through more accurate and rapid methods. The sites of infections often depend on the cancer type. The types of organisms vary based on the type of immunosuppression, disease stage, duration, therapies, and local prevalence of MDRO. Mimickers of septic shock should always be on the differential. While cancers can be risk factors for poor outcomes, immunosuppressive therapies or immunotherapies might mitigate the immune response which deserves further investigation.
Septic shock is a medical emergency which imposes an immediate transfer to the ICU when there is a need for specific technical support and critical care expertise. Management of septic shock in immunosuppressed cancer patients should follow general sepsis management guidelines with additional considerations tailored to specifics inherent to cancers. Understanding and addressing the unique needs of cancer patients through a new paradigm, which includes the integration of innovative technologies into our healthcare system, targeted management strategies, and robust clinical practices, including early identification and diagnosis, coupled with early admission to ICUs that promote a multidisciplinary approach, is crucial for improving their prognosis and overall survival rates. No cancer patient should eschew ICU care solely because of their underlying disease.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Abbreviations
- CRP:
-
C- reactive protein
- CRS:
-
Cytokine release syndrome
- CT:
-
Computerized tomography
- ECOG:
-
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
- ER:
-
Emergency room
- G-CSF:
-
Granulocyte colony stimulating factor
- GNB:
-
Gram-negative bacteria
- GPB:
-
Gram-positive bacteria
- HSCT:
-
Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
- ICU:
-
Intensive Care Unit
- MDRO:
-
Multidrug-resistant organisms
- NET:
-
Neutrophil extracellular trap
- NLR:
-
Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio
- PCT:
-
Procalcitonin
- SOT:
-
Solid organ transplantation
References
Martinson ML, Lapham J. Prevalence of Immunosuppression among US adults. JAMA. 2024;331:880–2.
Hensley MK, Donnelly JP, Carlton EF, Prescott HC. Epidemiology and outcomes of cancer-related versus non-cancer-related sepsis hospitalizations. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:1310–6.
Pyarali FF, Iordanov R, Palacio A, Tamariz L. Excess mortality risk from sepsis in patients with HIV—a meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2020;59:101–7.
Lecuyer L, Chevret S, Thiery G, Darmon M, Schlemmer B, Azoulay E. The ICU trial: a new admission policy for cancer patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:808–14.
Guidelines for intensive care unit admission discharge and triage. Task force of the American college of critical care medicine society of critical care medicine. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:633–8.
Nates JL, Nunnally M, Kleinpell R, Blosser S, Goldner J, Birriel B, et al. ICU admission, discharge, and triage guidelines: a framework to enhance clinical operations, development of institutional policies, and further research. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1553–602.
De Backer D, Deutschman CS, Hellman J, Myatra SN, Ostermann M, Prescott HC, et al. Surviving Sepsis campaign research committee. Surviving sepsis campaign research priorities 2023. Crit Care Med. 2024;52:268–96.
Danai PA, Moss M, Mannino DM, Martin GS. The epidemiology of sepsis in patients with malignancy. Chest. 2006;129:1432–40.
National Cancer Institute. Annual report to the nation 2019: overall cancer statistics. https://seer.cancer.gov/report_to_nation/statistics.html Last accessed May 30, 2024.
National Cancer Institute-Cancer Statistics. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Accessed 30 May 2024.
Roser M, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E. World population growth. Our world in data 2019, University of Oxford. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth. Accessed 30 May 2024.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, United Nations. World population Ageing 2015 Report. Accessed 30 May 2024.
Rozhok AI, DeGregori J. The evolution of lifespan and age-dependent cancer risk. Trends Cancer. 2016;2:552–60.
Weir HK, Thompson TD, Stewart SL, White MC. Cancer incidence projections in the United States between 2015 and 2050. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E59.
Cancer Today. International agency for research on cancer. World health organization. https://gco.iarc.who.int/today/en/dataviz/pie?mode=population&group_populations=0. Accessed 30 May 2024.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17–48.
Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74:229–63.
Rivera DR, Gallicchio L, Brown J, Liu B, Kyriacou DN, Shelburne N. Trends in adult cancer-related emergency department utilization: an analysis of data from the nationwide emergency department sample. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3: e172450.
Yang Z, Yang R, Kwak MJ, Qdaisat A, Lin J, Begley CE, et al. Oncologic emergencies in a cancer center emergency department and in general emergency departments countywide and nationwide. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0191658.
Legrand M, Max A, Peigne V, Mariotte E, Canet E, Debrumetz A, et al. Survival in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:43–9.
Wallace SK, Rathi NK, Waller DK, Ensor JE Jr, Haque SA, Price KJ, et al. Two decades of ICU utilization and hospital outcomes in a comprehensive cancer center. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:926–33.
Malik IA, Cardenas-Turanzas M, Gaeta S, Borthakur G, Price K, Cortes J, et al. Sepsis and acute myeloid leukemia: a population-level study of comparative outcomes of patients discharged from texas hospitals. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2017;17:e27–32.
Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, Murphy DJ, Seymour CW, Iwashyna TJ, et al. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA. 2017;318:1241–9.
Brun-Buisson C, Meshaka P, Pinton P, Vallet B. EPISEPSIS: a reappraisal of the epidemiology and outcome of severe sepsis in French intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:580–8.
Vincent JL, Rello J, Marshall J, Silva E, Anzueto A, Martin CD, et al. International study of the prevalence and outcomes of infection in intensive care units. JAMA. 2009;302:2323–9.
Vincent JL, Sakr Y, Singer M, Martin-Loeches I, Machado FR, Marshall JC, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of infection among patients in intensive care units in 2017. JAMA. 2020;323:1478–87.
Bayraktar UD, Shpall EJ, Liu P, Ciurea SO, Rondon G, de Lima M, et al. Hematopoietic cell transplantation-specific comorbidity index predicts inpatient mortality and survival in patients who received allogeneic transplantation admitted to the intensive care unit. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4207–14.
Manjappachar NK, Cuenca JA, Ramírez CM, Hernandez M, Martin P, Reyes MP, et al. Outcomes and predictors of 28-day mortality in patients with hematologic malignancies and septic shock defined by sepsis-3 criteria. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2022;20:45–53.
Cuenca JA, Manjappachar NK, Ramírez CM, Hernandez M, Martin P, Gutierrez C, et al. Outcomes and predictors of 28-day mortality in patients with solid tumors and septic shock defined by third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock criteria. Chest. 2022;162:1063–73.
Liu MA, Bakow BR, Hsu TC, Chen JY, Su KY, Asiedu EK, et al. Temporal trends in sepsis incidence and mortality in patients with cancer in the US population. Am J Crit Care. 2021;30:e71–9.
Rubin RH, Schaffner A, Speich R. Introduction to the Immunocompromised Host Society consensus conference on epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, and management of infections in solid-organ transplant patients. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(Suppl 1):S1-4.
Fernández S, Palomo M, Molina P, Díaz-Ricart M, Escolar G, Téllez A, et al. Progressive endothelial cell damage in correlation with sepsis severity. Defibrotide as a contender. J Thromb Haemost. 2021;19:1948–58.
Wiersinga WJ, van der Poll T. Immunopathophysiology of human sepsis. EBioMedicine. 2022;86: 104363.
Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Aschenbrenner AC, Bauer M, Bock C, Calandra T, Gat-Viks I, et al. The pathophysiology of sepsis and precision-medicine-based immunotherapy. Nat Immunol. 2024;25:19–28.
Heesterbeek DAC, Angelier ML, Harrison RA, Rooijakkers SHM. Complement and bacterial infections: from molecular mechanisms to therapeutic applications. J Innate Immun. 2018;10:455–64.
Azoulay E, Russell L, Van de Louw A, Metaxa V, Bauer P, Povoa P, et al. Diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:298–314.
Gudiol C, Albasanz-Puig A, Cuervo G, Carratalà J. Understanding and managing sepsis in patients with cancer in the era of antimicrobial resistance. Front Med. 2021;8: 636547.
Jamme M, Daviaud F, Charpentier J, Marin N, Thy M, Hourmant Y, et al. Time course of septic shock in immunocompromised and nonimmunocompromised patients. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:2031–9.
Opal SM, Cross AS. The use of immunocompromised animals as models for human septic shock. Shock. 2005;24(Suppl 1):64–70.
Delano MJ, Ward PA. Sepsis-induced immune dysfunction: can immune therapies reduce mortality? J Clin Invest. 2016;126:23–31.
Nasa P, Juneja D, Singh O. Severe sepsis and septic shock in the elderly: an overview. World J Crit Care Med. 2012;1:23–30.
Williams MD, Braun LA, Cooper LM, Johnston J, Weiss RV, Qualy RL, et al. Hospitalized cancer patients with severe sepsis: analysis of incidence, mortality, and associated costs of care. Crit Care. 2004;8:R291–8.
Mirouse A, Vigneron C, Llitjos JF, Chiche JD, Mira JP, Mokart D, et al. Sepsis and cancer: an interplay of friends and foes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202:1625–35.
Martin S, Baldock SC, Ghoneim AT, Child JA. Defective neutrophil function and microbicidal mechanisms in the myelodysplastic disorders. J Clin Pathol. 1983;36:1120–8.
Reiné J, Cooper K, Sewell A, Lyall J, Thorbinson C, Hincks E, et al. Neutrophil function is impaired in paediatric patients with malignancy and may be a useful clinical marker. Clin Transl Oncol. 2020;22:2121–5.
Gurule NJ, Malcolm KC, Harris C, Knapp JR, O’Connor BP, McClendon J, et al. Myelodysplastic neoplasm-associated U2AF1 mutations induce host defense defects by compromising neutrophil chemotaxis. Leukemia. 2023;37:2115–24.
Georges Q, Azoulay E, Mokart D, Soares M, Jeon K, Oeyen S, et al. Influence of neutropenia on mortality of critically ill cancer patients: results of a meta-analysis on individual data. Crit Care. 2018;22:326.
Hiam-Galvez KJ, Allen BM, Spitzer MH. Systemic immunity in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2021;21:345–59.
Arora J, Mendelson AA, Fox-Robichaud A. Sepsis: network pathophysiology and implications for early diagnosis. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023;324:R613–24.
Kutinova A, Woodward RS, Ricci JF, Brennan DC. The incidence and costs of sepsis and pneumonia before and after renal transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2006;6:129–39.
Adam R, Karam V, Delvart V, O’Grady J, Mirza D, Klempnauer J, et al. Evolution of indications and results of liver transplantation in Europe. A report from the European liver transplant registry (ELTR). J Hepatol. 2012;57:675–88.
Donnelly JP, Locke JE, MacLennan PA, McGwin G Jr, Mannon RB, Safford MM, et al. Inpatient mortality among solid organ transplant recipients hospitalized for sepsis and severe sepsis. Clin Infect Dis. 2016;63:186–94.
Ackerman KS, Hoffman KL, Díaz I, Simmons W, Ballman KV, Kodiyanplakkal RP, et al. Effect of sepsis on death as modified by solid organ transplantation. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2023;10:ofad148.
Widdifield J, Bernatsky S, Paterson JM, Gunraj N, Thorne JC, Pope J, et al. Serious infections in a population-based cohort of 86,039 seniors with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2013;65:353–61.
Ota R, Hata T, Hirata A, Hamada T, Nishihara M, Neo M, et al. Risk of infection from glucocorticoid and methotrexate interaction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis using biologics: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2023;89:2168–78.
Ravandi F, O’Brien S. Infections associated with purine analogs and monoclonal antibodies. Blood Rev. 2005;19:253–73.
Thursky KA, Worth LJ, Seymour JF, Miles Prince H, Slavin MA. Spectrum of infection, risk and recommendations for prophylaxis and screening among patients with lymphoproliferative disorders treated with alemtuzumab*. Br J Haematol. 2006;132:3–12.
Gea-Banacloche JC, Opal SM, Jorgensen J, Carcillo JA, Sepkowitz KA, Cordonnier C. Sepsis associated with immunosuppressive medications: an evidence-based review. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:S578–90.
Taur Y, Xavier JB, Lipuma L, Ubeda C, Goldberg J, Gobourne A, et al. Intestinal domination and the risk of bacteremia in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:905–14.
Hakim H, Dallas R, Wolf J, Tang L, Schultz-Cherry S, Darling V, et al. Gut microbiome composition predicts infection risk during chemotherapy in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:541–8.
Schnell D, Besset S, Lengliné E, Maziers N, Zafrani L, Reuter D, et al. Impact of a recent chemotherapy on the duration and intensity of the norepinephrine support during septic shock. Shock. 2013;39:138–43.
Vaidie J, Peju E, Jandeaux LM, Lesouhaitier M, Lacherade JC, Guillon A, et al. Long-term immunosuppressive treatment is not associated with worse outcome in patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit for septic shock: the PACIFIC study. Crit Care. 2023;27:340.
Oh SY, Cho S, Lee H, Chang EJ, Min SH, Ryu HG. Sepsis in patients receiving immunosuppressive drugs in Korea: analysis of the national insurance database from 2009 to 2013. Acute Crit Care. 2015;30:249–57.
Kieslichova E, Rocen M, Merta D, Kudla M, Splichal I, Cap J, et al. The effect of immunosuppression on manifestations of sepsis in an animal model of cecal ligation and puncture. Transplant Proc. 2013;45:770–7.
Guarana M, Nucci M, Nouér SA. Shock and early death in hematologic patients with febrile neutropenia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63:e01250-e1319.
Rhee CK, Kang JY, Kim YH, Kim JW, Yoon HK, Kim SC, et al. Risk factors for acute respiratory distress syndrome during neutropenia recovery in patients with hematologic malignancies. Crit Care. 2009;13:R173.
Claessens YE, Debray MP, Tubach F, Brun AL, Rammaert B, Hausfater P, et al. Early chest computed tomography scan to assist diagnosis and guide treatment decision for suspected community-acquired pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192:974–82.
Gerritsen MG, Willemink MJ, Pompe E, van der Bruggen T, van Rhenen A, Lammers JW, et al. Improving early diagnosis of pulmonary infections in patients with febrile neutropenia using low-dose chest computed tomography. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0172256.
Self WH, Courtney DM, McNaughton CD, Wunderink RG, Kline JA. High discordance of chest x-ray and computed tomography for detection of pulmonary opacities in ED patients: implications for diagnosing pneumonia. Am J Emerg Med. 2013; 31:401–5.
Torres A, Niederman MS, Chastre J, Ewig S, Fernandez-Vandellos P, Hanberger H, et al. International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) of the European respiratory society (ERS), European society of intensive care medicine (ESICM), European society of clinical microbiology and infectious diseases (ESCMID) and asociación latinoamericana del tórax (ALAT). Eur Respir J. 2017;50:1700582.
Gradel KO, Póvoa P, Garvik OS, Vinholt PJ, Nielsen SL, Jensen TG, et al. Longitudinal trajectory patterns of plasma albumin and C-reactive protein levels around diagnosis, relapse, bacteraemia, and death of acute myeloid leukaemia patients. BMC Cancer. 2020;20:249.
Shrotriya S, Walsh D, Bennani-Baiti N, Thomas S, Lorton C. C-reactive protein is an important biomarker for prognosis tumor recurrence and treatment response in adult solid tumors: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0143080.
Póvoa P, Souza-Dantas VC, Soares M, Salluh JF. C-reactive protein in critically ill cancer patients with sepsis: influence of neutropenia. Crit Care. 2011;15:R129.
Berman M, Ben-Ami R, Berliner S, Anouk M, Kaufman I, Broyde A, et al. The effect of tocilizumab on inflammatory markers in patients hospitalized with serious infections. Case series and review of literature. Life. 2021;11:258.
El Haddad H, Chaftari AM, Hachem R, Chaftari P, Raad II. Biomarkers of sepsis and bloodstream infections: the role of procalcitonin and proadrenomedullin with emphasis in patients with cancer. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;67:971–7.
Sakr Y, Sponholz C, Tuche F, Brunkhorst F, Reinhart K. The role of procalcitonin in febrile neutropenic patients: review of the literature. Infection. 2008;36:396–407.
Klastersky J, Paesmans M. The multinational association for supportive care in cancer (MASCC) risk index score: 10 years of use for identifying low-risk febrile neutropenic cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:1487–95.
Ahn S, Lee YS, Lim KS, Lee JL. Adding procalcitonin to the MASCC risk-index score could improve risk stratification of patients with febrile neutropenia. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:2303–8.
Ratzinger F, Haslacher H, Perkmann T, Schmetterer KG, Poeppl W, Mitteregger D, et al. Sepsis biomarkers in neutropaenic systemic inflammatory response syndrome patients on standard care wards. Eur J Clin Invest. 2015;45:815–23.
Stoma I, Karpov I, Uss A, Rummo O, Milanovich N, Iskrov I. Diagnostic value of sepsis biomarkers in hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients in a condition of high prevalence of gram-negative pathogens. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2017;10:15–21.
Sachak T, Arnold MA, Naini BV, Graham RP, Shah SS, Cruise M, et al. Neutropenic enterocolitis: new insights into a deadly entity. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015;39:1635–42.
Hill JA, Li D, Hay KA, Green ML, Cherian S, Chen X, et al. Infectious complications of CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor-modified T-cell immunotherapy. Blood. 2018;4(131):121–30.
Azoulay É, Castro P, Maamar A, Metaxa V, de Moraes AG, Voigt L, et al. Outcomes in patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy who were admitted to intensive care (CARTTAS): an international, multicentre, observational cohort study. Lancet Haematol. 2021;8:e355–64.
Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Crit Care Med. 2021;49:e1063–143.
Kochanek M, Schalk E, von Bergwelt-Baildon M, Beutel G, Buchheidt D, Hentrich M, et al. Management of sepsis in neutropenic cancer patients: 2018 guidelines from the infectious diseases working party (AGIHO) and intensive care working party (iCHOP) of the German society of hematology and medical oncology (DGHO). Ann Hematol. 2019;98:1051–69.
Cheong SHR, Ng YJX, Lau Y, Lau ST. Wearable technology for early detection of COVID-19: a systematic scoping review. Prev Med. 2022;162: 107170.
Ocampo-Quintero N, Vidal-Cortés P, Del Río CL, Fdez-Riverola F, Reboiro-Jato M, Glez-Peña D. Enhancing sepsis management through machine learning techniques: A review. Med Intensiva. 2022;46:140–56.
Ackermann K, Baker J, Green M, Fullick M, Varinli H, Westbrook J, Li L. Computerized clinical decision support systems for the early detection of sepsis among adult inpatients: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(2): e31083.
Lee DS, Suh GY, Ryu JA, Chung CR, Yang JH, Park CM, et al. Effect of early intervention on long-term outcomes of critically ill cancer patients admitted to ICUs. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1439–48.
Hourmant Y, Mailloux A, Valade S, Lemiale V, Azoulay E, Darmon M. Impact of early ICU admission on outcome of critically ill and critically ill cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2021;61:82–8.
Hourmant Y, Kouatchet A, López R, Mokart D, Pène F, Mayaux J, et al. Impact of early ICU admission for critically ill cancer patients: Post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter multinational dataset. J Crit Care. 2021;62:6–11.
de Montmollin E, Tandjaoui-Lambiotte Y, Legrand M, Lambert J, Mokart D, Kouatchet A, et al. Outcomes in critically ill cancer patients with septic shock of pulmonary origin. Shock. 2013;39:250–4.
Doukhan L, Bisbal M, Chow-Chine L, Sannini A, Brun JP, Cambon S, et al. Respiratory events in ward are associated with later intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hospital mortality in onco-hematology patients not admitted to ICU after a first request. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0181808.
Okafor UV. Challenges in critical care services in Sub-Saharan Africa: perspectives from Nigeria. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2009;13:25–7.
Firth P, Ttendo S. Intensive care in low-income countries–a critical need. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1974–6.
Estenssoro E, Alegría L, Murias G, Friedman G, Castro R, Nin Vaeza N, et al. Organizational issues, structure, and processes of care in 257 ICUs in Latin America: a study from the Latin America intensive care network. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1325–36.
Rello J, Leblebicioglu H. members of ESGCIP. Sepsis and septic shock in low-income and middle-income countries: need for a different paradigm. Int J Infect Dis. 2016;48:120–2.
Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) Management guidelines. Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) Management guidelines | infection control | CDC. Accessed June 06 2024.
Kreitmann L, Vasseur M, Jermoumi S, Perche J, Richard JC, Wallet F, et al. Relationship between immunosuppression and intensive care unit-acquired colonization and infection related to multidrug-resistant bacteria: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2023;49:154–65.
Mokart D, Saillard C, Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, Brun JP, Faucher M, et al. Neutropenic cancer patients with severe sepsis: need for antibiotics in the first hour. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:1173–4.
Hechtman RK, Kipnis P, Cano J, Seelye S, Liu VX, Prescott HC. Heterogeneity of benefit from earlier time-to-antibiotics for sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2024;209:852–60.
Freifeld AG, Bow EJ, Sepkowitz KA, Boeckh MJ, Ito JI, Mullen CA, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the use of antimicrobial agents in neutropenic patients with cancer: 2010 update by the infectious diseases society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;52:e56-93.
Tam CS, O’Reilly M, Andresen D, Lingaratnam S, Kelly A, Burbury K, Turnidge J, Slavin MA, Worth LJ, Dawson L, Thursky KA. Use of empiric antimicrobial therapy in neutropenic fever. Internal Med J. 2011;41(1b):90–101.
Klastersky J, de Naurois J, Rolston K, Rapoport B, Maschmeyer G, Aapro M, et al. ESMO guidelines committee. Management of febrile neutropaenia: ESMO clinical practice guidelines. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:111–8.
Exceptional surveillance of neutropenic sepsis. prevention and management in people with cancer (NICE guideline CG151) [Internet]. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2020.
Lopez R, Rello J, Taccone FS, Salem OBH, Bauer PR, Séguin A, et al. Aminoglycosides in immunocompromised critically Ill patients with bacterial pneumonia and septic shock: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter multinational cohort. Shock. 2020;54:731–7.
Kreitmann L, Helms J, Martin-Loeches I, Salluh J, Poulakou G, Pène F, et al. ICU-acquired infections in immunocompromised patients. Intensive Care Med. 2024;50:332–49.
Mokart D, Slehofer G, Lambert J, Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, Brun JP, et al. De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment in neutropenic patients with severe sepsis: results from an observational study. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40:41–9.
Azoulay E, Schellongowski P, Darmon M, Bauer PR, Benoit D, Depuydt P, et al. The intensive care medicine research agenda on critically ill oncology and hematology patients. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:1366–82.
Rygård SL, Holst LB, Wetterslev J, Johansson PI, Perner A. TRISS trial group; scandinavian critical care trials group higher vs. lower haemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock: subgroup analyses of the TRISS trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2017;61:166–75.
Bergamin FS, Almeida JP, Landoni G, Galas FRBG, Fukushima JT, Fominskiy E, et al. Liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy in critically Ill oncologic patients: the transfusion requirements in critically Ill oncologic patients randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:766–73.
de Almeida JP, Vincent JL, Galas FR, de Almeida EP, Fukushima JT, Osawa EA, et al. Transfusion requirements in surgical oncology patients: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2015;122:29–38.
Taplitz RA, Kennedy EB, Bow EJ, Crews J, Gleason C, Hawley DK, et al. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for adult patients with cancer-related immunosuppression: ASCO and IDSA clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:3043–54.
Bruno J and Tverdek FP. Antimicrobial prophylaxis in high-risk oncology patients. In oncologic critical care, Nates JL and Price KJ Editors. (Springer Nature Switzerland AG, ed. 1, 2020). Vol 1, chapter 14, Pages 153-167
Pène F, Percheron S, Lemiale V, Viallon V, Claessens YE, Marqué S, et al. Temporal changes in management and outcome of septic shock in patients with malignancies in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:690–6.
Bouteloup M, Perinel S, Bourmaud A, Azoulay E, Mokart D, Darmon M. Outcomes in adult critically Ill cancer patients with and without neutropenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Groupe de recherche en reanimation respiratoire du patient d’Onco-hematologie (GRRR-OH). Oncotarget. 2017;8(1):1860.
Zuber B, Tran TC, Aegerter P, Grimaldi D, Charpentier J, Guidet B. Impact of case volume on survival of septic shock in patients with malignancies. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:55–62.
Biard L, Darmon M, Lemiale V, Mokart D, Chevret S, Azoulay E, et al. Center effects in hospital mortality of critically Ill patients with hematologic malignancies. Crit Care Med. 2019;47:809–16.
Tolsma V, Schwebel C, Azoulay E, Darmon M, Souweine B, Vesin A, et al. Sepsis severe or septic shock: outcome according to immune status and immunodeficiency profile. Chest. 2014;146:1205–13.
Nazer L, Lopez-Olivo MA, Cuenca JA, Awad W, Brown AR, Abusara A, et al. All-cause mortality in cancer patients treated for sepsis in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:10099–109.
Kim YJ, Kim MJ, Kim YJ, Kim WY. Short and long-term mortality trends for cancer patients with septic shock stratified by cancer type from 2009 to 2017: a population-based cohort study. Cancers. 2021;13:657.
Le Borgne P, Feuillassier L, Schenck M, Herbrecht JE, Janssen-Langenstein R, Simand C, et al. Comparison of short- and long-term mortality in patients with or without cancer admitted to the ICU for septic shock: a retrospective observational study. Cancers. 2022;14:3196.
Awad WB, Nazer L, Elfarr S, Abdullah M, Hawari F. A 12-year study evaluating the outcomes and predictors of mortality in critically ill cancer patients admitted with septic shock. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:709.
Vandijck DM, Depuydt PO, Offner FC, Nollet J, Peleman RA, Steel E, et al. Impact of organ dysfunction on mortality in ICU patients with hematologic malignancies. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:1744–50.
Mokart D, Darmon M, Resche-Rigon M, Lemiale V, Pène F, Mayaux J, et al. Prognosis of neutropenic patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:296–303.
Camou F, Didier M, Leguay T, Milpied N, Daste A, Ravaud A, et al. Long-term prognosis of septic shock in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer. 2020;28:1325–33.
Hradská K, Popková T, Skořupová M, Mihályová J, Jelínek T, Lančová J, et al. Management of treatment-related infectious complications in high-risk hemato-oncological patients via telemedicine. Cancer Manag Res. 2022;14:1655–61.
Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH, Carson KR, Crawford J, Cross SJ, et al. Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3199–212.
Becker PS, Griffiths EA, Alwan LM, Bachiashvili K, Brown A, Cool R, Curtin P, Dinner S, Gojo I, Hicks A, Kallam A. NCCN guidelines insights: hematopoietic growth factors, version 1.2020: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Nat Compr Cancer Netw. 2020;18(1):12–22.
Munshi L, Dumas G, Rochwerg B, Shoukat F, Detsky M, Fergusson DA, et al. Long-term survival and functional outcomes of critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: a Canadian multicenter prospective study. Intensive Care Med. 2024;50:561–72.
García Herreros M, Laguna JC, Padrosa J, Barreto TD, Chicote M, Font C, Grafia I, Llavata L, Seguí E, Tuca A, Viladot M. Characterisation and outcomes of patients with solid organ malignancies admitted to the intensive care unit mortality and impact on functional status and oncological treatment. Diagnostics. 2024;14(7):730.
Temel JS, Petrillo LA, Greer JA. Patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2022;40:626–34.
Rocque GB, Andrews C, Lawhon VM, Ingram SA, Frazier RM, Smith ML, et al. Physician perspectives on reducing curative cancer treatment intensity for populations underrepresented in clinical trials. Oncologist. 2022;27:1067–73.
Hernandez González VL, Alaminos MO, Mir AS, Borges M, Aranda M, Castillo A, et al. Can artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques improve the ability to detect sepsis and septic shock. A retrospective study of 218562 adult patients in a university hospital. J Crit care. 2024;81:154684.
Henry KE, Adams R, Parent C, Soleimani H, Sridharan A, Johnson L, et al. Factors driving provider adoption of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system and its effects on sepsis treatment timing. Nat Med. 2022;28:1447–54.
van der Zee EN, Benoit DD, Hazenbroek M, Bakker J, Kompanje EJO, Kusadasi N, et al. Outcome of cancer patients considered for intensive care unit admission in two university hospitals in the Netherlands: the danger of delayed ICU admissions and off-hour triage decisions. Ann Intensive Care. 2021;11:125.
MacPhail A, Dendle C, Slavin M, Weinkove R, Bailey M, et al. Sepsis mortality among patients with haematological malignancy admitted to intensive care 2000–2022: a binational cohort study. Crit Care. 2024;28:148.
Babu M, Lautman Z, Lin X, Sobota MHB, Snyder MP. wearable devices: implications for precision medicine and the future of health care. Annu Rev Med. 2024;75:401–15.
Impact of Aminoglycosides-based Antibiotics Combination and Protective Isolation on Outcomes in Critically-ill Neutropenic Patients With Sepsis: (Combination-Lock01) ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05443854. Last accessed June 24, 2024.
Cuenca JA, Nates JL, Laserna A, Heatter AJ, Manjappachar N, Martin P, et al. Long-term survival of patients with cancer, sepsis, and vasopressor requirements based on lactate levels. Crit Care Explor. 2024;6: e1070.
Ko BS, Jeon S, Son D, Choi SH, Shin TG, Jo YH, et al. Machine learning model development and validation for predicting outcome in stage 4 solid cancer patients with septic shock visiting the emergency department: a multi-center. Prospective Cohort Study J Clin Med. 2022;11:7231.
Kim SM, Kim YJ, Kim YJ, Kim WY. Prognostic impact of neutropenia in cancer patients with septic shock: a 2009–2017 nationwide cohort study. Cancers. 2022;14:3601.
Awad WB, Nazer L. Long-term outcomes of cancer patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Gulf J Oncolog. 2024;1:51–3.
Kim YJ, Kang J, Kim MJ, Ryoo SM, Kang GH, Shin TG, et al. Development and validation of the vital class score to predict mortality in stage IV solid cancer patients with septic shock in the emergency department: a multi-center, prospective cohort study. BMC Med. 2020;18:390.
Rasheed M, Khan YH, Mujtaba G, Mallhi TH, Saadullah M, Saifullah A. Assessment of clinical features and determinants of mortality among cancer patients with septic shock of pulmonary origin: a prospective analysis. Postgrad Med J. 2020;96:277–85.
Mokart D, Saillard C, Zemmour C, Bisbal M, Sannini A, Chow-Chine L, et al. Early prognostic factors in septic shock cancer patients: a prospective study with a proteomic approach. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62:493–503.
Ñamendys-Silva SA, González-Herrera MO, Texcocano-Becerra J, Herrera-Gómez A. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of critically ill cancer patients with septic shock. QJM. 2011;104:505–11.
Park HY, Suh GY, Jeon K, Koh WJ, Chung MP, Kim H, et al. Outcome and prognostic factors of patients with acute leukemia admitted to the intensive care unit for septic shock. Leuk Lymphoma. 2008;49:1929–34.
Kim YJ, Seo DW, Kang J, Huh JW, Kim KW, Kim WY. Impact of body composition status on 90-day mortality in cancer patients with septic shock: sex differences in the skeletal muscle index. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1583.
Lee MR, Lai CL, Chan KA. Intensive care unit admission and survival in stage iv cancer patients with septic shock: a population-based cohort study. J Cancer. 2019;10(14):3179–3187.
Funding
This work was supported by a discretionary fund from the Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
Contributions
All authors collaborated to the conception of the manuscript, the redaction of the draft, tables and figures, editing and final approval of the manuscript. J.L.N. and P.R.B. put the manuscript together, and harmonized flow and balance of the whole project.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
FP received lecture and consulting fees from Gilead. PC received honoraria for scientific collaboration from Pfizer, MSD, Gilead, and AbbVie, and advisory board fees from Alexion, Janssen, Sanofi and Gilead. PP received lecture fees from Gilead, Pfizer, Mundipharma, MSD and advisory board fees from Biocodex, Gilead. SD received lecture fees from Octapharm, OrphaSwiss, Alexion and advisory board fees from Alexion, Santersus, and Pantherna. The other authors declare no conflict of interest applicable to this work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nates, J.L., Pène, F., Darmon, M. et al. Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review. Crit Care 28, 285 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05073-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05073-0