ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Anti-EGFR enhanced neoadjuvant immunotherapy versus neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy for locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Stratified lymph node yield thresholds after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy: a surgical benchmark for survival in oral squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the management of metastatic oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), but their efficacy in the neoadjuvant setting is still under investigation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NAIC), neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus cetuximab (NAI-CTX), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in patients with locally advanced OSCC. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 475 patients with stage III-IVA OSCC were stratified into three groups: NAIC (n=265), NAI-CTX (n=46), and NAC (n=164). The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), major pathologic response (mPR), and treatment-related toxicity. Results: Pathologic outcomes were significantly superior in the NAIC group. The pCR rates were 30.2% for NAIC, compared to 13.0% for NAI-CTX and 7.3% for NAC (p<0.001). Similarly, mPR rates were 69.8%, 39.1%, and 50.0%, respectively (p<0.001). NAIC also achieved a higher objective response rate (90.6% Conclusion: NAIC demonstrates superior pathologic responses and survival benefits compared to both NAI-CTX and NAC, establishing it as a highly promising neoadjuvant strategy for locally advanced OSCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.