ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Evaluation of neoadjuvant immunotherapy regimens for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and single-arm and network meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough multiple neoadjuvant immunotherapy (NAI) regimens have been explored in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) recently, the optimal selection remains largely debatable. The present study aimed to comparatively evaluate clinical outcomes across various NAI regimens in resectable HNSCC.
methodsWe systematically searched studies published from 2000 to June 2025. Data encompassing treatment efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], pathological complete response [pCR], major pathological response [MPR], tumor downstaging), survival outcomes (overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS]), and safety profiles (grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events [irAEs]) were pooled and analyzed from eligible studies. Subsequently, network meta-analysis (NMA) with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was implemented to comparatively evaluate therapeutic regimens across studies.
resultsA total of 44 studies (7 randomized controlled trials and 39 single-arm trials) involving 1688 patients were included. Pooled analysis revealed superior treatment response with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NIC) versus alternative regimens: ORR = 80% (0.70-0.88), pCR = 40% (0.35-0.44), MPR = 64% (0.59-0.69), and pathological downstaging = 79% (0.71-0.86), complemented by favorable survival (2-year OS = 91% [0.86-0.94]; 2-year DFS = 90% [0.83-0.94]). NMA of 7 RCTs demonstrated that NIC conferred significant improvements in pCR and downstaging rates compared to mono-immunotherapy, immune-targeted therapy, and dual-immunotherapy. Additionally, NIC trended toward better ORR, MPR, and 2-year DFS, though the differences failed to attain statistical significance. SUCRA analysis consistently ranked NIC highest across all evaluated efficacy endpoints. Notably, while SUCRA analysis ranked NIC highest for irAE risk, NMA revealed no significant differences in the incidence rates across regimens.
conclusionsOur findings establish NIC as the superior regimen within immunotherapy-based neoadjuvant modalities for achieving pCR and tumor downstaging in HNSCC patients, thereby providing robust evidence to support its clinical prioritization and assist in treatment decision-making. Nevertheless, high-quality trials are needed to further compare various NAI regimens as well as NAI against neoadjuvant chemotherapy to conclude the optimal treatment strategy.
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.