ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Comparison of short-term outcomes of combined neoadjuvant chemotherapy and immunotherapy, neoadjuvant radiotherapy, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT) compared to those of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) in patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: Patients with locally advanced resectable ESCC undergoing neoadjuvant therapy followed by minimally invasive McKeown esophagectomy (MIE) between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2022, were categorized into the nCT, nCRT, and nICT groups. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the 13 baseline covariates across the groups. Post-IPTW comparisons included adverse events, surgical outcomes, pathologic complete response (PCR), tumor downstaging, and perioperative complications. Results: A total of 437 patients were enrolled (nICT = 218, nCRT = 78, nCT = 141). After propensity score matching (PSM), 78 patients were included in each group. During neoadjuvant therapy, the incidence of leukopenia was significantly higher in the nCRT (33.33%) and nICT (23.08%) groups than in the nCT (10.26%), Conclusion: For locally advanced resectable ESCC, nCRT requires vigilant management because of its association with grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (AEs). While nICT demonstrates a lower incidence of severe (grade ≥ 3) non-immune toxicities compared to nCRT, supporting its controllable safety. nCRT achieved superior PCR rates versus nICT/nCT, but nICT showed greater nodal (N) downstaging efficacy. Conversely, nCRT provided enhanced primary tumor (T) control.
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.