Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39369225›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2024

Comparison of pathologic response and survival outcomes between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT) in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Yi Wang, Ke Ma, Huan Zhang, Lei Wu, Li Liu, Yehan Zhou, Lin Peng, Qifeng Wang, Xiang Zhuang

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Differential Survival Outcomes of Satisfactory Tumour Response (ypStage I) Following Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Versus Neoadjuvant Immunochemotherapy of Oesophageal Squamous Cell Cancer.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

9 authors.

Yi Wang *Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No.55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Ke Ma *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Huan Zhang *School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610054, Sichuan, China.
Lei WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No.55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Li LiuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No.55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Yehan ZhouDepartment of Pathology, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Lin PengDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China.
Qifeng Wang *Department of Radiation Oncology, Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No.55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China. littlecancer@163.com.
Xiang Zhuang *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, No. 55, Section 4, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610042, China. 13882191333@139.com.

Funding

Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province 2023YFS0488
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn locally advanced, operable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (nICT) has shown results that are somewhat comparable to those of standard neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). The impact of these neoadjuvant treatments on survival outcomes, however, has yet to be elucidated.

methodsThis study included 489 patients with locally advanced ESCC who underwent surgery at Sichuan Cancer Hospital after receiving neoadjuvant treatment between June 2017 and September 2023. Patients were categorized into nCRT and nICT groups based on whether they received neoadjuvant treatment. To mitigate potential biases and balance covariates between the two cohorts, 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted using a caliper width of 0.05.

resultsAfter PSM, the baseline characteristics of the 360 patients remained balanced between the two groups. The findings indicated a superior pathological response in the nCRT group, as evidenced by significantly greater rates of complete response (32.87% vs 14.58%, P < 0.001) and favorable tumor regression grade (TRG), as well as reduced ypT stages and less perineural and angioinvasion, despite comparable ypN stages. Despite the improvement in complete pathological response (pCR) in the nCRT group, the 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates did not significantly differ between the groups (DFS: 58.32% vs 56.16%, P = 0.67; OS: 69.96% vs 71.99%, P = 0.99). Crucially, The nICT group showed a lower incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events in Leukopenia (2.8% vs 29%; P < 0.001) and Neutropenia (2.8% vs 24%; P < 0.001) during neoadjuvant treatment, comparing with nCRT group.

conclusionsOur preliminary findings suggest that nICT followed by surgery offers comparable survival rates to nCRT, despite being less effective in pathologic outcomes. Nonetheless, nICT is a safe and feasible strategy for locally advanced ESCC, warranting further exploration to understand its impact on long-term survival.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaNeoadjuvant TherapyPropensity ScoreAdultAgedChemoradiotherapyEsophagectomyFemaleHumansImmunotherapyMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateLocally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinomaNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapyNeoadjuvant immunochemotherapyPathologic responsePropensity Score Matching (PSM)

Identifiers

PMID39369225
PMCPMC11453051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.