Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36825006›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2023

Perioperative outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus camrelizumab compared with chemotherapy alone and chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer.

Baihua Zhang, Hongbo Zhao, Xun Wu, Lianghui Gong, Desong Yang, Xu Li, Xiaoyan Chen, Jigang Li, Wenxiang Wang, Jie Wu and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
11.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Baihua ZhangThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Hongbo ZhaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital and Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, China.
Xun WuThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Lianghui GongThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Desong YangThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xu LiThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Xiaoyan ChenDepartment of Pathology, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jigang LiDepartment of Pathology, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Wenxiang WangThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Jie WuThe Second Department of Thoracic Surgery, Hunan Clinical Medical Research Center of Accurate Diagnosis and Treatment for Esophageal Carcinoma, Hunan Cancer Hospital and The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Qin XiaoKey Laboratory of Translational Radiation Oncology, Hunan Province, The First Department of Thoracic Radiation Oncology, Hunan Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Xiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Hunan Cancer Hospital · CNCentral South University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (nCIT) is becoming a new therapeutic frontier for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); however, crucial details and technical know-how regarding surgical techniques and the perioperative challenges following nCIT remain poorly understood. The study investigated and compared the advantages and disadvantages of esophagectomy following nCIT with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data of patients initially diagnosed with resectable ESCC at clinical stage T2-4N+ and received neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy at the Hunan Cancer Hospital between October 2014 and February 2021. Patients were divided into three groups according to neoadjuvant treatment: (i) nCIT; (ii) nCT; and (iii) nCRT. Results: There were 34 patients in the nCIT group, 97 in the nCT group, and 31 in the nCRT group. Compared with nCT, nCIT followed by esophagectomy achieved higher pathological complete response (pCR; 29.0% versus 4.1%, p<0.001) and major pathological response (MPR; 52.9% versus 16.5%, p<0.001) rates, more resected lymph nodes during surgery (25.06 ± 7.62 versus 20.64 ± 9.68, Conclusions: This clinical analysis showed that nCIT is safe and feasible, with satisfactory pCR and MPR rates. Esophagectomy following nCIT has several perioperative advantages over nCT and nCRT, with comparable perioperative morbidity and mortality. The long-term survival benefits after nCIT still requires further investigation.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBlood Loss, SurgicalChemoradiotherapyHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyRetrospective StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, Humanizedcamrelizumabesophageal squmaous cell carcinomaesophagectomyimmunotherapyneoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyneoadjuvant therapyprogrammed cell death protein-1 inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID36825006
PMCPMC9941171
OpenAlexW4319444128

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.