SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with immunotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains one of the most aggressive and lethal cancers, with high incidence and mortality rates in East Asia. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC) has traditionally been the standard approach for improving resectability in ESCC, but its limited efficacy in achieving complete pathological responses and enhancing survival has driven interest in combining it with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), resulting in neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NIC). Based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), this meta-analysis compares the risks and clinical benefits of NIC versus NC in resectable ESCC patients. Methods: This meta-analysis systematically reviewed data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing NIC and NC in the treatment of resectable ESCC. Primary outcomes included pathological complete response (pCR) and major pathological response (MPR), while secondary outcomes focused on overall survival (OS), event-free survival(EFS), surgery rate, microscopically margin-negative resection(R0 resection), Intraoperative and hospitalization indicators, T Staging, Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors(RECIST), and adverse events (AEs). Results: Six high-quality RCTs (1070 patients) were included. NIC significantly improved major pathological response(MPR) (42.8% vs. 22.2%, Odds Ratio(OR) = 2.40, p = 0.0007) and pathological complete response(pCR) (22.2% vs. 8.0%, OR = 3.53, p < 0.00001). NIC was also associated with borderline statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.57, p = 0.05) and R0 resection rate (OR = 2.56, p = 0.05). In addition, NIC enhanced surgical rate (OR = 1.57, p = 0.02), lymph node resection (Mean Difference (MD) = 1.76, P = 0.008), and NIC with a longer interval to surgery (MD = 4.73, p = 0.003, I2 = 95%), although this pooled estimate is less reliable because of considerable heterogeneity. However, immune-related adverse events (iRAEs) were higher in NIC (23.21% vs. 1.16%, p < 0.00001), though severe AEs were similar. Conclusions: NIC significantly improves pathological response and other perioperative benefits (e.g., surgical rate and lymph node resection) in resectable ESCC compared with NC, with a trend toward improved survival, despite a higher incidence of irAEs. Further studies are needed to optimize treatment protocols and clarify the long-term impact of immune-related toxicities.
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.