SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2024
Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Patients with Unresectable or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Immunotherapy- Versus Chemotherapy-Based Regimens: Systematic Review and Pooled Analyses.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Conversion Therapy for cT4b and M1 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveImmunotherapy-based regimens (IMT) versus cytotoxic chemotherapy (CHT) improved overall survival (OS) of patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (mESCC), but the role of prognostic variables is unclear. The study aims to explore the interaction of prognostic factors with survival after IMT or CHT.
methodsA systematic review was performed to select trials comparing IMT and CHT regimens in mESCC patients. A meta-analysis of upfront IMT + CHT vs. CHT trials evaluated the overall effect size and heterogeneity between studies. In view of the expected differences between chemotherapy and immunotherapy on the survival curve, to better explore the effect of any prognostic variables on OS, before and after progression, the treatment arms were evaluated as independent cohorts, and ten baseline variables were extracted and assessed by linear regression.
resultsFourteen trials were identified. Seven studies compared upfront CHT + IMT vs. CHT documenting longer OS for CHT + IMT (HR 0.69, CI 0.65-0.72), without heterogeneity (Q = 1.43, p value = 0.968) or differences in the most represented subgroups. Twenty-nine study cohorts were selected from the 14 trials. Median OS and PPS, but not PFS, were significantly increased after IMT compared with CHT. The analysis of baseline variables after CHT documented a favorable prognostic effect for advanced age (β = 0.768, p value = 0.016), involvement of 0-1 metastasis sites (β = 0.943, p value = 0.005), and absence of previous radiation therapy (β = - 0.939, p value = 0.006), while none of them influenced prognosis after IMT.
conclusionThe introduction of upfront IMT prolonged mESCC patients OS, mostly improving the outcomes of young patients, with multiple metastasis sites and without previous radiotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39153173What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.