ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024
Efficacy and safety evaluation of first-line systemic treatments for unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- RHBDD2 Confers Insensitivity of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma to Cisplatin by Inhibiting Ferroptosis Through the Wnt3a/β-Catenin/FTH1 Axis.Cell biochemistry and biophysics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of various first-line initial treatment systemic regimens for patients with unresectable esophageal squamous carcinoma(ESCC), utilizing a network meta-analysis approach. Methods: A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials focusing on the primary treatment of esophageal cancer ESCC was conducted across multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, up until November 17, 2023. The quality of the included studies was rigorously assessed using Review Manager software. Subsequently, data analysis was meticulously carried out employing R software. The first-line treatment regimens examined were: CD (Cisplatin + Docetaxel), CET-CF (Cetuximab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), CF (Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), N-CF (Nivolumab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), NI (Nivolumab + Ipilimumab), Nim-CF (Nimotuzumab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), P-CF (Pembrolizumab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil), and Ser-CF (Serplulimab + Cisplatin + Fluorouracil). The Primary endpoints included the overall survival(OS),progression-free survival (PFS),objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR).The secondary endpoint was adverse effects(AEs). Results: The analysis encompassed eight studies, incorporating a total of 3,051 patients with untreated esophageal cancer. There are 45 people in the CD regimen,32 in the CET-CF regimen,1,212 in the CF regimen,447 in the N-CF regimen,456 in the NI regimen,53 in the Nim-CF regimen,447 in the P-CF regimen and 368 in the Ser-CF regimen. The network meta-analysis revealed that, in comparison to the CF regimen, the other regimens (CD, CET-CF, N-CF, NI, Nim-CF, P-CF, and Ser-CF) did not demonstrate a statistically significant impact on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS). However, Ser-CF potentially offers superior outcomes in terms of OS and PFS when juxtaposed with other regimens. Notably, N-CF was associated with a substantial increase in the objective response rate (ORR), and CET-CF markedly improved the disease control rate (DCR). In terms of adverse effects, N-CF was more likely to cause anorexia, whereas CET-CF was significantly associated with nausea, vomiting, neutropenia, and skin disorders. Conclusion: The current evidence suggests that N-CF may provide the most favorable outcomes in terms of ORR, while CET-CF could be the optimal choice for enhancing DCR in patients with untreated esophageal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.