ranged from less than 20% to 50% The most significant advance regarding long-term outcomes was achieved by Schellongowski et al. in a retrospective single-center study on AML patients in Vienna [7]. Among the patients alive 30 days after ICU admission, overall survival, disease-free survival, and the proportion of patients with complete remission did not differ significantly between patients who needed ICU management and those who never did [7]. Up to 80% of ICU survivors actually continue standard optimal chemotherapy and are in remission 6 months after ICU discharge [8]. Corresponding data on patients with solid tumor are sparse, but they are expected to vary according to type of tumor [68, 114]. In lung cancer patients, the initial anticancer treatment plan required reduction or modification in 38% of ICU survivors, mostly dependent on the previous performance status In general, long-term survival of ICU survivors seems to be largely independent of severity of illness and characteristics of the ICU stay (i.e., the main determinants of ICU and hospital mortality): instead, cancer prognosis correlates with post-ICU survival [7, 46, 72, 92, 111, 113, 116]. In a study surveying cancer patients 18 months after admission, health-related QOL was similar between hematologic patients who needed ICU management and those who did not [98, 117]. In a cohort of cancer patients chiefly including solid tumors, markedly reduced QOL 1 year after ICU discharge was reported [112]. It is noteworthy, however, that more than 90% of patients prefer to be readmitted to an ICU in the event of a new deterioration [112]. A recent Brazilian study on elderly ICU patients with mainly advanced oncological malignancies found a probability of only 30% and 19%, respectively, for attaining 12 and 18 months of quality-adjusted survival. The authors identified a series of baseline characteristics, among them performance status, QOL prior to ICU, performance status, and cancer and therapy status, which strongly correlated with QOL after 18 months [114]. The ICU may offer the best possibilities for effective pain and symptom management [110, 118, 119]. However, studies highlight that bereaved families perceive and recall the patient’s last days or weeks as suboptimal [120]. We do not recommend the use of ICU services for dying patients. The 10 most important studies/trials in the next 10 years A lot remains to be done to further reduce mortality in cancer patients requiring life-saving interventions (Table 3; Fig. 3). We identified the following domains to be evaluated in more depth, and suggestions for future research are provided below. Early ICU admission There is a need to develop specific early warning scores to predict clinical changes in high-risk patients (myeloablative treatment for HSCT or induction chemotherapy for AML) [121, 122]. Since respiratory failure and sepsis are the principal indications for ICU admission of cancer patients, respiratory rates, oxygen saturation, hypotension, mental status, and tachycardia are the main parameters to be monitored for early detection. The role of biomarkers is currently unclear in this specific group of patients. Innovative technology (wireless devices, e-tools) appears promising and its use needs to be investigated. In the future, according to healthcare models and to countries, it is possible that no ICU bed will be available for early ICU admission. Then, studies will be needed to demonstrate that treating these patients in the ward is not saving cost as compared to early