Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36177019›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2022

Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in resectable esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

He Wang, Sihan Li, Tingting Liu, Jun Chen, Jun Dang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. NewInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

He WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Sihan LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Tingting LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Anshan Cancer Hospital, Anshan, China.
Jun ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Shenyang Tenth People's Hospital, Shenyang, China.
Jun DangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
First Hospital of China Medical University · CNAnshan Hospital · CNShenyang Ninth People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with chemotherapy (nICT) or chemoradiotherapy (nICRT) has been tested in resectable esophageal cancer. Nevertheless, efficacy and safety for this new strategy have not been clearly demonstrated. Patients and methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and scientific meetings were searched for eligible trials until June 30, 2022. The primary outcome of interest was pathological complete response (pCR). The random-effect model was used for statistical analysis. Results: Twenty-seven trials with 809 patients were identified. The estimated rates of pCR for nICRT and nICT were comparable (32.7%, 95% CI: 20.3%-45.1% vs 26.3%, 95% CI: 19.8%-32.8%; P = 0.37). As for safety, surgical resection rate, R0 resection rate, surgical delay rate, and surgical mortality rate were similar between nICRT and nICT, while more grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were observed for nICRT (52.6%, 95% CI: 30.7%-74.5% vs 19.9%, 95% CI: 8.8%-31.0%; P = 0.01). In subgroup analysis, nICRT achieved higher pCR rate compared to nICT (56.2%, 95% CI: 41.0%-71.3% vs 27.2%, 95% CI: 20.2%-34.1%; P < 0.001) for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) but adenocarcinoma. In patients receiving nICT, PD-L1 expression CPS ≥1 showed higher pCR rate compared to CPS <1 (51.3%, 95% CI: 41.4%-61.2% vs 26.6%, 95% CI: 8.6%-44.5%; P = 0.02); regimen of paclitaxel plus carboplatin/cisplatin (PC/TP) and 3-4 cycles of nICT did not lead to an significantly improved pCR rate compared to other chemotherapy regimens and 2 cycles of nICT, respectively, despite without increased toxicity. Conclusion: Both nICT and nICRT achieved promising pCR rates with acceptable tolerability, and nICRT was likely to have more antitumor efficacy compared to nICT for patients with SCC. PD-L1 status seemed to be predictive of pCR in patients receiving nICT; pCR rate did not appear to be greatly affected by CT regimen and increasing cycles of nICT.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsB7-H1 AntigenCarboplatinChemoradiotherapyCisplatinHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPaclitaxelB7-H1 AntigenCarboplatinCisplatinImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPaclitaxelchemoradiotherapychemotherapyesophageal cancerimmune checkpoint inhibitormeta-analysisneoadjuvantpathological complete response

Identifiers

PMID36177019
PMCPMC9513123
OpenAlexW4295847173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.