ArticleFrontiers in immunology2025
Neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy versus neoadjuvant immunoradiotherapy in locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. 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.
- Breaking New Ground in Cervical Metastatic Carcinoma of Unknown Primary: Neoadjuvant Immunochemotherapy's Pathologic Regression and Survival Advantage.Annals of surgical oncology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To juxtapose the efficacy and safety profiles of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy (NAIC) and neoadjuvant immunoradiotherapy (NAIR) in the management of locally advanced oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered data was conducted. The study evaluated the impact of NAIC versus NAIR on various parameters, including pathologic complete response (pCR), major pathologic response (mPR), clinical to pathological downstaging, surgical site infection, quality of life, pathologic adverse features, and prognostic outcomes. Results: The study encompassed a total of 120 patients, with 73 undergoing NAIC. The pCR and mPR rates in the NAIR group were 25.5% and 63.8%, respectively, closely mirroring the 31.5% and 69.9% observed in the NAIC cohort. A propensity for clinical to pathological downstaging and a reduced incidence of pathologic adverse features was noted in the NAIC population. However, both groups exhibited similar distributions in surgical site infection rates, quality of life metrics, grade 3/4 adverse events, and overall survival. In the Cox proportional hazards model, patients receiving NAIC demonstrated a hazard ratio of 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.65-0.98) for 3-year locoregional control, relative to the NAIR group. Conclusion: In the context of locally advanced oral SCC, both NAIC and NAIR exhibited robust efficacy and safety profiles. Nevertheless, NAIC provided superior locoregional control compared to NAIR, thereby emerging as the more favorable initial therapeutic option over NAIR.
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.