MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094417833 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v73i4.3027

Chemotherapy in the Intensive Care Unit: An Evaluation of Context and Outcomes

2020· article· en· W3094417833 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Salmaan Kanji, Erica MacLean, Farah Joy Rashid, Michelle Pittman, Melanie Trinacty, David Allan, Erin Rosenberg, Resource Optimization Network

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChemotherapyContext (archaeology)Intensive care unitChemotherapy regimenPharmacyRegimenIntensive care medicineIntensive careRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Administration of chemotherapy to highly vulnerable, critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is becoming more common, but the process requires significantly more resources than chemotherapy administration in specialized oncology settings.Objective: To describe the context, complications, and outcomes of chemotherapy administration for cancer-related indications in ICU patients.Methods: For this retrospective observational study, consecutive patients receiving parenteral chemotherapy in the ICU at the General Campus of The Ottawa Hospital between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, were identified using pharmacy records. The clinical characteristics of these patients, details of their chemotherapy regimens, and outcomes were analyzed.Results: A total of 32 patients were included in the study. Of these, 27 patients (84%) had a hematological malignancy, 16 (50%) had a documented infection at the time of chemotherapy administration, and 29 (91%) received their first cycle of chemotherapy on an urgent basis during the ICU admission rather than as a scheduled or planned treatment. Severity of illness was high both at ICU admission and at the time of chemotherapy treatment; regimen modifications, drug interactions, and adverse events were common. Remission and survival data were available for 28 patients at 12 months. Eighteen (56%) of the 32 patients survived to hospital discharge, and 12 (38%) survived to 6 months; at 12 months, survival was 25% (7 of 28 patients with available data). About one-quarter of the patients were in remission at 6 and 12 months.Conclusion: Administering chemotherapy in the ICU is feasible, but the process is resource-intensive. Patients with aggressive hematological cancers who require treatment on an urgent basis represent the most commonly observed scenario. This study highlights the complexity of management and the importance of multidisciplinary care teams for this patient population.Keywords: critical care, chemotherapy, cancerRÉSUMÉ Contexte : L’administration de chimiothérapie à des patients hautement vulnérables et gravement malades admis dans une unité de soins intensifs (USI) est de plus en plus courante, mais le processus exige beaucoup plus de ressources que dans des environnements spécialisés en oncologie.Objectif : Décrire le contexte, les complications et les résultats de l’administration de chimiothérapie pour les indications liées au cancer de patients admis dans une USI.Méthodes : Les patients successifs ayant participé à cette étude observationnelle rétrospective, qui recevaient une chimiothérapie parentérale dans une USI du Campus général de l’Hôpital d’Ottawa entre le 1er janvier 2014 et le 31 décembre 2017, ont été déterminés à l’aide de dossiers de pharmacie. Les caractéristiques cliniques de ces patients, les détails de leur programme de chimiothérapie ainsi que les résultats ont fait l’objet d’une analyse.Résultats : Trente-deux (32) patients ont été inclus dans l’étude. Parmi eux, 27 (84 %) souffraient d’une hémopathie maligne, 16 (50 %) avaient une infection documentée au moment de l’administration de la chimiothérapie et 29 (91 %) recevaient en urgence le premier cycle de chimiothérapie pendant leur admission à l’USI plutôt que sous forme de traitement programmé ou planifié. Étant donné l’extrême gravité de la maladie lors de l’admission à l’USI et du traitement de chimiothérapie de ces patients, les modifications apportées au programme, les interactions médicamenteuses et les effets secondaires étaient fréquents. Les données relatives à la rémission et à la survie à 12 mois de 28 patients étaient disponibles. Le congé hospitalier a été donné à 18 (56 %) patients survivants sur les 32 admis et 12 (38 %) survivaient au 6e mois, alors qu’au 12e mois, le taux de survie était de 25 % (7 des 28 patients dont les données étaient disponibles). Environ un quart des patients étaient en rémission au 6e et au 12e mois.Conclusion : L’administration de chimiothérapie dans une USI est faisable, mais le processus exige beaucoup de ressources. Les patients atteints d’un cancer hématologique agressif qui ont besoin en urgence d’un traitement constituent le scénario le plus courant. Cette étude souligne la complexité de la gestion et l’importance des équipes de soins multidisciplinaires pour cette population de patients.Mots-clés : soins intensifs, chimiothérapie, cancer

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicSepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207